Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-11-2013 Charter Packet (2)
LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION SPECIAL JOINT MEETING CHARTER COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 6:30 PM Thursday, APRIL 11, 2013 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Open Mike / Public Comments 4. Consideration of adoption by ordinance the Charter amendment as proposed by the City Council to the voters in 2012 (pursuant to request from City Council). Parameters: One hour timeframe, limited to City Council and Charter Commissioners. 6:30 PM Next meeting date, Thursday, April 11, 2013 Adjournment 7:30 PM Christopher Lyden Chair Caroline Dahl Margaret Penn Vice Chair Secretary [[NQ[ KES Proposed Charter Amendment Learn why your city council is proposing a change to your city charter Visit www.ci.lino-lakes.mn.us for additional information PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID PERMIT NO. 32324 TWIN CITIES, MN The city of Lino Lakes is a home rule charter city. A charter is a municipal corporation's organizational plan or framework that is similar to a constitution. It is formulated by a municipality itself and is adopted by popular vote of the citizenry. The Lino Lakes city charter was adopted in 1983. What is the change the city council is proposing? The city council is proposing a change to chapter 8 of the city charter which outlines the process for approval of public improvements. The amendment would expand public involvement when an improvement such as local road reconstruction is proposed, while changing the process for a city-wide referendum if the city is using special assessments plus general fund dollars for the improvement. Most cities fund public improvements with this combination of dollars, but Lino Lakes is the only city in Minnesota that requires a referendum on special assessments. This amendment will allow the city to undertake public improvements generally using the procedures in state law, but continue to provide additional protections for residents above and beyond state law. BALLOT QUESTION Shall chapter 8 of the city of Lino Lakes charter be amended as described below? Chapter 8 is amended to provide that the city may undertake es in sta epaweexcept thatn(aldin whole or in if more than 50% part with special assessments generally using the procedures tofo the property dditio owners abuttingif the council orders the named streets le a timely the improvemjection, the city must ent after the second hold meeting second dre than to take additional testimony, (b1 50% of the affected owners may stop the improvement by filing objections within 30 days after the city council rt from ad valorem taxes, is ub; and (c) if thew d cost of any eferendum improvement a t melyis to be petition is filed byaid in a registered voters equal to at leasthe 12 percent is subject to city-wide re whereof the statse castw inthelast sessment rules apply; unicipal instead chapter 8 as amended applies throughout the citytion. The amendment also eliminates three special . state law special Why is the city council proposing this change? When the city charter was adopted in 1983, most of the local streets in Lino Lakes were relatively new. Since then, some local streets have reached a point where normal periodic maintenance has lost its effectiveness, and restoration is necessary. Since 1997, the city has held four referendums to reconstruct certain aging local roads. Three have failed. If a referendum fails, the road cannot be reconstructed. The city council recognizes that streets are a major asset to a city and that it's every city's responsibility to keep streets safe and in good condition. A systematic pavement management program is the most cost- effective and efficient way to maintain our city streets. Will this amendment take away my right to stop a road reconstruction project that I don't want? No. A YES vote will amend the city charter A NO vote will leave the city charter unchanged PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROCESS Either neighborhood petitions for, or city council proposes, a public improvement A public hearing is held Neighborhood has 60 days to petition for or against it CURRENT CHARTER PROCESS 51% of the neighborhood petitions against it Project is stopped 51% of neighborhood petitions for it Charter requires a city-wide referendum for the project to proceed Will the passing of this amendment to the charter raise my property taxes? No. Passing the amendment will not increase taxes, however, in the future, rebuilding streets could impact property taxes. If voters do not pass this amendment and referendums continue to fail, over the years, streets eventually will have to be rebuilt anyway. In that case, a combination of special assessments and property taxes can't be used and the city would likely have to rely solely on funds from the general tax levy. Your taxes could potentially be even higher because benefitting property owners will not be assessed and the cost of the project could be directly apportioned to all Lino Lakes residents. PROPOSED CHARTER PROCESS 51% of the neighborhood petitions against it Second hearing is held to take additional testimony Neighborhood has an additional 30 days to stop the project by petition 51% of neighborhood petitions for it Project can proceed unless a requisite number of registered city voters petition for a city-wide referendum within 30 days More background information is available at www.ci.lino-lakes.mn.us Cable channel 16 will broadcast information about the proposed amendment at noon and 7 p.m. Tuesday through Saturday during October If you have questions call community developr f director Mike Grochata at 651-982-2427 or email michael.grochata©ci.lino-takes.mn.us ..� CHAPTER VIII. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Section 8.01. Power to Make Improvements and Levy Assessments. The City may make any type of public improvements not forbidden by law and levy special assessments to pay all or any part of the cost of such improvements as are of a local character. The total assessments for any local improvement may not exceed the cost of the improvement, including all costs and expenses connected therewith, with interest. No assessment shall exceed the benefits to the property. Section 8.02. Effective Charter Provisions, Except as Provided in Section 8.07. Local improvements (the term "local improvement" shall mean a public improvement financed partly or wholly from special assessments) shall be carried out exclusively under the provisions of this Charter. (Amended 11/23/93, Ordinance No. 93-19) 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) governing local improvements and special assessments. The ordinance(s) shall provide a complete working code covering the determination of assessments and assessment districts, public hearings, appeals from a collection of assessments, penalties for delinquency in making payments, financing of said assessments, and the certifying of unpaid assessments for collection by the proper County officer. Said ordinance(s) shall also provide for installment payments and notices to be given thereof, appellate procedure, reassessment, if necessary, and all other matters appropriate to 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 set forth in such ordinance(s) and as otherwise contained in this Charter. Section 8.04. Special Assessment Procedure. (Amended) Subdivision 1. All improvements to be paid for by special assessments against the benefitted property shall be instituted by either, (1) a petition of at least twenty-five percent (25%) in number of the benefitted property owners (A benefitted property owner can only sign once regardless of the number of benefitted parcels owned and a benefitted parcel can only have one signature.) together with a resolution adopted by an affirmative vote of the majority of all of the Council, or, (2) a resolution adopted by a four-fifths affirmative vote of all of the Council. The Council resolution shall state the nature and scope of proposed improvement including the number of benefitted property owners, and shall provide means to obtain a cost estimate which shall set forth the cost of the improvement both in unit price and in total thereof. Upon receipt of such estimate, the Council shall by resolution set a date for a public hearing on the proposed improvement setting forth therein the time, place and purpose of such hearing. Such resolution shall be published twice, at least one week apart, in the official newspaper of the City no less than two (2) weeks prior to the date of said hearing, and in addition thereto, a copy of such resolution including estimate unit prices and estimated total price thereof shall be mailed to each benefitted property owner at his/her last known address at least two (2) weeks prior to the date of said hearing. Failure to give mailed notice, or any defects in the notice, shall not invalidate the proceedings. At such hearing the City shall receive any written and oral statements, and hear any petitioners for or against the proposed improvement. At such hearing the City Council shall present a special assessment formula and an analysis of the assessment income expected to offset the proposed improvement cost. A period of sixty (60) days shall elapse after the public hearing before any further action shall be taken by the Council, on the proposed improvement. If within such sixty (60) day period, in a petitioning process independent of the initiating process, a petition against such improvement be filed with the Council, signed by a majority of the owners proposed to be assessed for such improvement, or when the improvement has been petitioned for, signed by a number of the owners proposed to be assessed for such improvement, at least equal to the number of those who petitioned for the improvement, the Council shall not make such improvement at the expense of the property benefitted, unless, in the meantime there be filed with the Council a petition asking that the improvement be made, signed by property owners proposed to be assessed for such improvement at least equal in number to those who signed the petition against the improvement; in which event the Council may disregard the petition against the improvement. Any person whose name appears on a petition to the Council for a local improvement, may withdraw his/her name by statement in writing filed with the Council before such petition is presented to the Council. Subdivision 2. Regardless of the provisions of Subdivision 1 of this section, when less than one hundred (100%) percent of the estimated cost of the proposed improvement is to be paid for by special assessments, connection charges, or any outside funding sources other than the City general fund, the Council shall within one hundred twenty (120) days after the conclusion of the public hearing, submit the proposed local improvement and its assessment formula to the voters of the City. If no election is scheduled during such one hundred twenty (120) day period, the Council shall schedule a special election by which said improvement and its associated assessment formula can be submitted to the City's voters. If a majority of those voting on said improvement and associated assessment formula are opposed, the Council shall not proceed with the local improvement as proposed. (Amended) Subdivision 3. When a proposed improvement is allowed under the foregoing subdivision, and the public record of the proposed improvement contains all of the evidence on which the Council shall base their decision, the Council may by resolution, at any time between sixty (60) days and one (1) year after the conclusion of the public hearing, proceed on the improvement. If after bids are received on the project the proposed contract exceeds the estimated cost of the engineer stated at the public hearing held under Subdivision 1 by more than ten (10%) percent, the City Council may not award the contract for the proposed improvement, but may rebid the project for one (1) time only. (Amended) Subdivision 4. When a proposed improvement is disallowed under the foregoing subdivisions, the Council shall not vote on the same improvement within a period of one (1) year after the public hearing on said improvement. Section 8.05. Assessments for Services. The Council may provide by ordinance that the cost of City services to streets, sidewalks, or other public or private property may be assessed against property benefitted and may be collected in the same manner as special assessments. Such costs shall not be deemed to be "special assessments" for the purposes set forth in Section 8.03 of this chapter. Section 8.06. When under the provisions of section 8.04, Subdivision 1, an improvement is petitioned for by one hundred (100%) percent 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. (Amended) Section 8.07. Local Improvement; Special Provisions. Subdivision 1. Except as provided in Subdivision 3, 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 lying south and east of State Trunk Highway #49 (Hodgson Road) right-of-way AREA NO. 2 - Interstate I35E 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 lying 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 I35W 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 I35W 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 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. 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 Subdivision 3. When construction of local improvements, the levy of special assessments 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 residential unit may file a petition with the City Clerk objecting to the special assessment to be levied against his/her parcel. Such petition shall be filed with the City at or before the first public hearing to be held on the project. After the filing of such petition the City 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 improvements constructed by the City. Any notice of hearing mailed to such single family, owner occupied units shall include notice of the property owner's right to object to the assessments as granted in this paragraph. This exception terminates on the first day that an owner occupied residential unit no longer exists on the parcel of real property. (Section 8.07 Added November 22, 1993, Ordinance No. 93 - 19) CITY QUESTION BALLOT SPECIAL ELECTION CITY OF LINO LAKES November 6, 2012 INSTRUCTIONS TO VO PERS: To vote for a question, fill in the oval next to Ca word "YES" for that question. To vote against a question, fill in the oval next to the word "NO" for that question. CITY QUESTION NO. 1: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT Shall Chapter 8 of the City of Lino Lakes charter be amended as described below? Chapter 8 is .amended to provide that the City may undertake public improvements financed in whole or in part with special assessments generally using the procedures in state law, except that: (a) if more than 50% of the property owners abutting the named streets file a timely objection, the City must hold a second meeting to take additional testimony; (b) if the Council orders the improvement after the second meeting, more than 50% of the affected owners may stop the improvement by filing objections within 30 days after the City Council action; and (c) if the cost of any improvement is to be paid in part from ad valorem taxes, the improvement is subject to city-wide referendum if a timely petition is filed by registered voters equal to at least 12 percent of the votes cast in the last general municipal election. The amendment also eliminates three special zones where State law special assessment rules apply; instead Chapter 8 as amended applies throughout the City. CD YES NO Frequently Asked Questions What are public improvements? Public improvements can include construction of new roads and utilities (sewer and water) and construction of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Public improvements also include major maintenance programs in existing neighborhoods when areas age and the infrastructure such as streets, sidewalks, sewers and similar public facilities need updating, What are special assessments? Special assessments are an additional tax levied on private property for public improvements that enhance the value of the property. The use of special assessments is an equitable means to finance the improvements while minimizing the demand on the City's property tax levy and statutory debt limitations. Special assessments are even more applicable if new improvements such as sanitary sewer or water are installed. Through special assessments these utility costs are borne solely by the benefited property and not by the community at large. Special Assessments are typically payable over a period of years. The city's current policy provides for special assessments to be collected with your property taxes over a 15 year period. For a complete guide to special assessments go to this link: http://www. linolakes. govoffice2. com/vertical/Sites/%7BA2338809-8316-4E17-A27A- C25E01027DA7%7D/uploads/Special Assessment Guide. pd f What are the procedures for paving for public improvements under Minnesota State Law? There are laws that apply to all Minnesota cities when it comes to special assessments. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 gives cities authority to levy special assessments. Most cities follow the process outlined in state law. Some cities use a combination of special assessments and taxes to pay for public improvements, while some cities pay for them entirely through taxes. See Minnesota Statute 429 regarding City's authority to specially assess at: h ttp://www. linolakes. govoffice2. com/vertical/Sites/%78A2338B09-8316-4E17-A27A- C25E01027DA7%7D/uploads/429. pd f How are public improvements paid for in Lino Lakes? New local roads and utilities are paid for by the developer at the time a subdivision is built, and the cost is passed on to the buyer of a lot or home in that subdivision. Reconstruction of aging roads is the City's responsibility. In Lino Lakes, the City Charter supplements state law with additional procedures that include a general referendum if using a combination of special assessments and general fund dollars to fund improvements. According to an analysis by the League of Minnesota Cities, only Lino Lakes has a charter provision that requires a referendum on special assessments. The city has held four referendums to reconstruct certain aging local roads. Three have failed. If a referendum fails, the road cannot be reconstructed. For the complete City Charter go to the link below. Chapter 8 deals with the approval process for public improvements. httn://www.linolakes.Rovofice2.com/vertical/sites)%7BA233BB09-8316-4E17 A27A- C25E01027DA7%7D/uploads/%788A043C80-9FDC-422D-A27E-2786074C2DFE%7D. PDF What will this amendment change? This amendment will change the language in Chapter 8 of the City Charter referring to public improvements so that a city-wide referendum will no longer be automatically required if the City is using special assessments plus general fund dollars to fund a public improvement. It will allow the City to undertake public improvements generally using the procedures in state law, but the proposed amendment continues to provide additional protections for residents above and beyond state law. Will residents who will be specially assessed lose their right to protest? No. Under the current Charter, the City Council holds a public hearing on a proposed road reconstruction, and then affected residents have a 60 -day window to petition against the project. Under the proposed process, the City Council holds a public hearing, and if more than 50% of the affected residents oppose it, there is a second public hearing to take additional testimony. At this point the project could be modified or the project would be stopped if more than 50% of those residents still oppose it and petition against it within 30 days. This gives affected residents more input into the process and more opportunity to understand and adjust the scope and cost of the project if they desire. Will the other residents of the City lose their right to oppose a public improvement project? No. If the benefitting residents want the project to move forward, there is still an opportunity for a city- wide referendum, if property taxes are being used to pay for any part of the project. City residents will have the opportunity to petition for it to be placed on the ballot for a city-wide vote if they file a timely petition. This petition requires signatures of registered voters equal to at least 12 percent of the votes cast in the last general municipal election. Based on the 2011 local election, that would amount to 518 signatures to require a vote on a reconstruction project. Will voting for this amendment affect my property taxes? No. If this amendment to Section 8 of the City Charter is approved by the voters, it will not raise property taxes because there are not currently any road reconstruction projects being proposed. Your property taxes could see an increase if the following events occur: • The proposed amendment passes; and • A future road reconstruction project is proposed; and • The majority of residents in the impacted neighborhood want the project; and • The City does not receive a citizen petition against it; and • The project is built What is the difference between road maintenance and road reconstruction? Maintenance consists of either overlaying or sealcoating. Overlaying is a maintenance activity that includes patching of the existing street, milling the pavement adjacent to the curb, followed by the placement of a bituminous wearing course over the entire surface. Seal coating is a maintenance activity that places a thin layer of oil and rock on the street to enhance the surface and prolong the useful life of the street. These activities have been routinely performed by the City as part of its pavement management program. These projects are funded each year through the property tax levy as part of the City's annual budget. This method is useful for smaller projects where the cost of the improvement has a negligible effect on property tax rates and where improvements have a shorter term benefit. Lino Lakes budgeted $467,250 in 2012 for road maintenance projects. Selection of streets for these maintenance activities are determined by the City's Pavement Management Ratings called the Overall Condition Index (OCI). All streets within the City are routinely rated. Streets rated 70 -100 are in the adequate category. These streets are considered for sealcoating. Streets rated 40 to 70 are in the marginal category. These streets are considered for overlays as well as sealcoats based on their ratings and available funding. Streets rated in the 0 to 40 range typically need substantial subgrade corrections and require reconstruction. In this case, an overlay or "lift" on a street in this category would quickly return to its present problem condition. Because of the substantial cost involved these projects are typically funded through the issuance of bonds that spread the payments out over a longer period of time. The bonds are repaid through a combination of special assessments to benefited property and property tax levy. How many roads in Lino Lakes need reconstruction? Lino Lakes has approximately 95 miles of paved local streets and approximately 17 miles are in need of reconstruction. Whv do we need to change the City Charter instead of maintaining streets as the City has done in the past? The City Council recognizes that streets are a major asset to a city and that it's every city's responsibility to keep streets safe and in good condition. Street conditions reach a point where normal periodic maintenance loses its effectiveness, and restoration becomes necessary. A systematic pavement management program is the most cost effective and efficient way to maintain our city's streets. It also provides more predictability for residents, spreads costs out over a period of years, and reduces ongoing maintenance costs. If streets are in need of reconstruction, why have there only been four referendums since the Charter was adopted in 1983? In 1983, most of the streets in Lino Lakes were much newer and were not in need of reconstruction. As streets continued to age, the City completed a pavement management study in 1996 to look at the future needs of the City. The first referendum passed in 1997. Since then, referendums in 2003, 2005 and 2007 have failed. The City Council believes that waiting until even more roads become critically in need of reconstruction will be more costly to residents in the long run. Why can't the City just maintain roads so they don't need to be reconstructed? Even with good routine maintenance, all streets have a limited life span, just like your driveway. Only a certain level of maintenance is cost-effective. The City can continue to patch to maintain accessible streets, but potholes will continue to occur, leaving streets in an unsightly manner and rough condition, as well as a possible safety hazard to you and your vehicle. Maintaining local streets also helps maintain everyone's property values. Whv does this proposed amendment eliminate three special zones? The last sentence in the proposed amendment refers to three commercial districts in the City which have been exempt of City Charter rules since 1993. These zones follow the standard special assessment procedures provided for in state law to facilitate commercial and industrial development. With the proposed change to the Charter, these exemptions are no longer necessary. Updated September 21, 2012 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM 3A(i) STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala MEETING DATE: August 13, 2012 TOPIC: Consider 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 05-12 Amending Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter, Regarding Public Improvements and Special Assessments VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5 INTRODUCTION The City Council is considering the amendment of Chapter 8 of the City Charter as it relates to Public Improvements and Special Assessments. State law specifies the procedure for amendment of the charter by council recommendation. Council consideration and approval of the 2nd reading of Ordinance No. 05-12 is necessary for consideration of the proposed amendment by the voters in the November election. BACKGROUND The City Council has been discussing a proposed amendment to the City Charter regarding the public improvement process for several years. The current amendment is based on the proposal, prepared in 2007, by the Citizen's Task Force to Review Charter Provisions Pertaining to Public Improvements (the "Task Force Amendment"). The Task Force Amendment was modified by the council in 200,8 to delete Section 8.0-7 relating to charter "exempt" areas. Following the February 27, 2012 council discussion, staff worked with the City's legal consultant to draft a revision that includes a reverse referendum component. A similar option was previously included in the Charter Commission's 2008 amendment proposal. Rather than require an election outright, as is the case under the current charter requirements, the language allows for residents to petition for an election on the improvement. The petition would require the signatures of 12% of the voters from the last general municipal election. The reverse referendum provisions are contained in Section 8.02, Subdivisions 5 and 6 of the draft ordinance. The following is a brief summary of the major elements of the ordinance - 1. Section 8.01, Subd. 1 defines local improvements as any public improvement financed in whole or in part from special assessments. Projects that are not financed using special assessments are not subject to charter provisions and follow state law. 2. Section 8.01, Subd. 3 states that the amount of special assessments shall not exceed the cost of the local improvement and shall not exceed the benefit to the property. 3. Section 8.02, Subd. 1 specifies that local improvements will follow state requirements except as specified in this charter section. Procedural steps following state law include but are not limited to the following: • Initiation of the improvement by either petition or city council • Preparation of a report on improvements (feasibility study) • Calling for a public hearing • Published and mailed notice of the public hearing • Public hearing on improvements. 4. Section 8.02, Subd. 2 allows for a written objection to the improvements from 50% of the abutting property owners to be filed with the city prior to or at the improvement hearing. If no objection is received, the council may order the project as specified under state requirements. If an objection is received the council shall call a special meeting (2nd public hearing) to be held at least 45 days after the improvement hearing. 5. Section 8.02, Subd. 3 allows the city council to order the improvement following the special meeting (2nd public hearing), but requires the effective date of the resolution to be at least 30 days after adoption. In such case, the City is required to mail a summary of the resolution to affected owners within 5 days of adoption. Prior to the effective date of the resolution, if 50% of the affected property owners sign written objections to the resolution then the resolution does not become effective and the improvement is not ordered. 6. Section 8.02, Subd. 5 provides that if any portion of the project is to be paid from- property romproperty taxes, registered voters may file a petition requesting a vote on the - improvement. Such petition must be received within 30 days of the effective date-ofthe resolution ordering the improvement and be signed by registered votersequal to at least 12 percent of the votes case in the last general municipal election. Based on 2011 election -this number would be 51_-7 signatures. In such case, the city may only proceed after obtaining approval of a majority of the voters voting on the question. 7. Section 8.02, Subd. 6 states that in the event the ballot question fails, the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 475.58 will apply. These requirements stipulate that the same ballot measure cannot be resubmitted to the voters within a period of 180 days. If it fails a second time, it may not be resubmitted within a period of one year. 8. The ordinance also repeals Section 8.07 of the Charter regarding the exempt zones. The City Council approved the 1st reading of the ordinance on March 12, 2012. A copy of the ordinance was submitted to the City Charter Commission, for review, on March 13, 2012. The Charter Commission approved a resolution requesting an additional 90 days for review on April 12, 2012. The 150 day review period expires on August 10, 2012. On July 12, 2012 the Charter Commission voted to reject the proposed amendment and no additional comments were received. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the second reading of Ordinance No. 05-12. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance No. 05-12 1' Reading: March 12, 2012 Publication: August 21 2012 2nd Reading: Aucrust 13 , 201 2 Effective: (to Nov. , 6, 2012 ballot) CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. Q5-12 AN ORDNANCE AMENDING CRAFTER 8 OF THE, LLNO LAKES CITY CHARTER, REGARDING PLrBLIC 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: 1 -.. ...- _ .. -- .._ - The City may make any type of public imp -pavements Rot ferbi4deB by law and levy, special asae sments to pay all or any part of the cast ef such imprevements as are -of a -local character. the benefits to the property. Section 8.02. Effective Charter Provisions, Except as Provided in Section 8.07. Local improvements (the ter "laced imp " shaE man a public improvement financed partly or wholly from special assessments) slll be earned out exclusively under the provisions of this Charter. (-'\.mended 11'23193, O= i ince Ne. 93 19) Section 8.03. Local Improvement Ordinances and Reg 1atiens. W ane hundred upon, the Council shall enact suitable erdinanee(s) govemin laced inaprements and special local improvements and as: essments. After the adaption of sech ordinance) p iding for local improvements, all procedures in compliance therewith ,hall confenn to the regulations as set Section 8.04. Special Assessment Procedure. Subdivision 1. All improvements to be paid for by special assessments against the - either, (1) a petition of at least twenty five percent (25°4,) in number of the bencfitted property owners (A benefitted property owner can only sign once regardless of the number of benefitted parcels owned and a bancfittcd parcel can only have one signature.) together with a resolution adopted by an aff.rmative vote of the majority of all of such estimate, the Council shall by resolution set a date for a public hearing on the proposed improvement setting forth therein the time, place and purpose of such hearing. Such resolution resolution including estimate unit prices and estimated total price thereof shall be mailed to each benefitted property owner at his.'har last known address at least two (2) weeks prior to the date of such si,:ty (60) day period, in a petitioning process independent cf the initiating process, a petition against such improvement be filed with the Council, signed by a majority of the owners proposed to be assessed for such improvement, or when the improvement has been petitioned for, signed by a number of the owners proposed to be assessed for such improvement, at least equal to the number of those who petitioned for the improvement, the Couneil shall not make filed with the Council a petition asking that the improvement be made, signed by property owners proposed to be assessed for such impr vement at least equal in number to those who sigsled the petition against the improvement; in which event the Council may _disregard the petition against the improvement. Any person whose name appears on a petition to the Council 's.'he.r name by statement in waiting filed with the Subdivision 2. Regardless of the provisions of Subdivision 1 of this section, when Iess than one hundred (100%) percent of the estimated cost of the proposed improvement is to be paid for by special assessments, connection charges, or any outside funding sources other than not proceed with the local improvement as proposed. improvement. If after bids are received on the project the proposed contract exceed, the after the public heating oia said improveme Such costs shall not be deemed to be "special asses— encs" for the pus ses set fe .h in Section 5.03 of this chapter. sixty (60) days waiting period. After such petition, the City Council may immediately order the proposed project. (Amended) Section 2. That Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter be amended by adriina_ 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 fmanced=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 sig 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 sin an objection or petition only once; and (c) for the purpose of identifvinz recipients of any notice under this Chanter. 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 local improvement. including all desim 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 dans 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 forsuch local improvements. Subdivision 3. A resolution ordering the local improvements (as such local 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 dale 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. If the required number of owners do not file a timely objection under this subdivision. the local improvement may proceed after the effective date of the resolution. except as otherwise provided in Subdivisions 5 and 6. 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 thereafter 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 and Subdivisions 5 and 6. 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 narned 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. Subdivision 5. If any portion of the cost of a local improvement is to be paid from ad valorem taxes. the ordering of the local improvement shall be suspended for 30 days after the effective date of the resolution ordering the local improvement under subdivision 3 (if no timely objection was filed by the required number of owners) or under subdivision 4. If a petition requesting a vote on the local improvement signed by registered voters equal to at least 12 percent of the votes cast in the last general municipal election is filed with the City Clerk by the end of that 30 -day period. then the City may proceed with the local improvement. and may issue general obligation bonds to finance the local improvement only after obtaining approval of a majority of the voters voting on the question at a general or special election. The ballot shall generally describe the proposed local improvement the estimated principal amount of bonds to be issued to finance the local improvement and the estimated percentage of total debt service on the bonds expected to be paid from ad valorem taxes. Subdivision 6. If the voters do not approve a local improvement .and issuance of bonds therefore -at an election required by subdivision 5: the provisions of Minnesota Statutes. section 475.58, subd. la shall apply. Subdivision 5. When a proposed impro meat is disallowed under the foregoing subdivisions. the Council shall not vete eia the same i . in a period of one (1) Year after the public hearing on said improvement.-. mless it is 4e er ped by the Council that a sooner vote is necessary to preserve public peace. health. morals. safety or welfare. Section 4. That Chapter 8, Section 8.07, of the Lino Lakes City Charter is hereby repealed: Section 8.07. Local Improvement; Special Provisions. Subdivision 1. Except as provided is Subdivision 3, i In the-geeapc areas of the City described in Subdivision 2, the ceases of local the levy e -special procedures specified in state lath. Suhdivisior. ?. Subdivision. 1 applies to land within three (3) geographic areas, each not AREA NO. 1 Tr unit Highway' 19 (Hodgson Road) and County State Aid Hi-„hway 1.`23 Intersection (Lake Drive) All Government Lot 1, Section 30, T31, R22, PPT. 30 31 22 210001 State Trunk Highway 1,t19 (Hodgson Road) right of way AREA NO. 2 Interstate I35E and County Road 212 (Main Street) Interchange Northeast one quarter (1/1) of Section 21 That part of the southeast one quarter (1/1) of Section 21 lying north of Cedar Street East one half (1/2) of the northwest one quarter (1/1) of Section 21 AREA NO. 3 Interstate I35W and Trunk Highway 1'19 (Lake Drive) Interchange North one half (1,2) of the southwest one quarter (1!1) of Section 18 r_ north of the Interstate 135W right of way That part of the southwest one quarter (1/1) of Section 17 lying west of Trunk Highway 1,19 (Lake Drive) right of way All of the northwest one quarter (1/4) of Section 17 with the exception of that part of the quarter (1/1) of the northwest one quarter (1/1) with the east right of way line of or ) ; thence southeasterly 672. 39 (+ or ) feet to eaat line of said southeast one {= or ) feet to the south line of said southeast one quarter (1/1) of the northwest one quarter (1/1); thence westerly along said south line 1021.59 feet (- or ) to the point of beginning. . - quarter (1/4) of Section 17 lying west of the Anoka Coun43° Park property That part of the north one half (1 /2) of the northeast one quarter (1-P) of Section 17 lying west of the Anoka County Pari: property 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!') of Section 8 quarter (1/4) of Section 8 est one quarter (1,'1) c.f Section & Subdivision 3. When constuction of local 113219r •eme , the levy of special assessments described in subdivision 2, on which a single family, owner occupied residential unit existed on September 30, 1993, the owner/occupairt of such residential unit may file a petition with the City filing of such petition the City may not specially assess such owner's propel for the improvements constructed c ess the owner, at his'he: optic, in -the fanHe elects to ce nect to or use the improvements constructed by the City. Any notice of hearing mailed to such singly family owns- occupied units shall include notice of the property owners :fight to object to the assessments as granted in this paragraph. This exception terminates OE the first day that an owner occupied residential unit no longer exists on the parcel of.real property. Jeff Reinert Mayor Attest �.Tulianne Bartell, City Cs erk Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this 13th day of August, 2012. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was introduced by Council Member O'Donnell and was duly seconded by Council Member Roeser and -upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: O'Donnell, Roeser, Rafferty, Reinert The following voted against same: None (Absent- Stoesz) PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROCESS City Council proposes project. OR Citizens petition for project. City completes report on improvements which includes project scope, cost and proposed assessments. 1 City Council calls for Public Hearing; staff notifies affected property owners by mail and citizens by published legal notice. Affected property owners can submit written objection to the project. City Council holds PUBLIC HEARING for public comment. Was written objection received by more than 50% of affected property owners prior to or at the YES Council calls for 2nd Hearing to be held at least 45 days after the 1st hearing. Staff notifies affected property owners by mall and citizens by published CITY ACTION NO City Council holds 2nd PUBLIC HEARING to take additional testimony, hear concerns, work out differences and revise project, if necessary. FESIDENTON The Council can order the project with or without amendments based on public comment, without increasing the project scope. The Counc I can order the project with or without amendments based on public comment, without increasing the project scope. Staff notifies affected property Citizens can petition to request a vote on the improvement project. Affected property owners can submit written objection to the project. Was a petition received by more than 12% of residents who voted in the last local election within 30 days of ordering YES Project goes to Public Election. 51% of voters must approve the project or it is stopped. 7 71 r. NO Was written objection received by more than 50% of affected property owners within 30 days of ordering the YES Project moves forward. City Council stops the project. COMPARISON CHART Provision: Existing Charter Charter Amendment Proposed by City Council Automatic citywide Referendum vote by the public required to authorize spending on improvement projects that affect citywide property taxes: Yes. The Charter gives voters decision power over City spending on costly assessable street projects. No. Rather, this protection only occurs in limited cases upon submission of a "timely" petition signed by 12% of "votes cast." * Neighborhood Vote, where a majority of residents to be assessed can turn down a proposed public improvement project: Yes. Our city Charter irrefutably gives homeowners decision power on costly assessable street projects. Not quite. City Hall can cancel the neighborhood vote by simply declining to name specific streets in the notice, or by omitting the notice. Neighborhood vote allowed on projects not including streets, i.e. utilities, sidewalks, etc. Yes. No. Area -wide vote allowed for owners subject to area -wide assessments for non -abutting properties: Yes. A common practice in other cities, the Charter protects all property owners regarding this type of taxation No. This proposal opens the door to area -wide assessments in Lino Lakes with no taxpayer protection. Requirement that a majority of affected owners file written objections prior to or at the public hearing: No. Yes. This is the initial meeting, yet if the majority does not vote no at this time, an unwanted project can no longer be rejected by the affected owners. 60 day voting period after the Public Hearing for affected owners to consider the proposal, ask questions, discuss with spouses, neighbors, etc. and vote: Yes. No. See above. Total time provided for affected owners to consider the improvement proposal and costs involved: 74 days. 0 days. Requirement that a majority of affected owners FILE A SECOND WRITTEN OBJECTION (2°d neighborhood vote) if a project is unwanted: No. Yes. If and only if 51% of the affected owners object at the Public Hearing, that objection is not final, but induces a "Special meeting" 45 days later. Mailed notification to affected owners that includes the estimated amount to be assessed to each affected property, and the estimated total price of the project: Yes. No. These all-important dollar amounts need not be disclosed until the Public Hearing (when the objection is due). Provision that failure to provide notice or a defect in the notice does not invalidate the proceedings Yes, but affected owners have a 60 -day voting period following the Public Hearing in which a failure in the notice can be remedied. Yes, but there is no 60 -day period, and the written majority objection is due at the Public Hearing or objection rights expire. * The threshold for citywide citizen petitions for other matters is commonly set at 5% of the registered voters. This 12% requirement is not only unusually high, the amendment wording is legally troubling and may result in misunderstandings and costly litigation. (April 22, 2013) Dear Mayor and Council, As you know, pursuant to a vote of the Commission, the Mayor and I had made arrangements for the special joint meeting between the City Council and the Charter Commission. Mayor Reinert and I agreed to hold the special joint meeting on April 11, 2013. In addition, four of the five members of Council were present at the February 21 Commission meeting, where it was stated no less than 6 times that the scheduled date of that special joint meeting would be held on April 11 (subsequently canceled due to weather). The meeting agenda had been verbally agreed to between the Mayor and I. However, Mayor Reinert brought a different agenda to the February 21 Commission meeting, and he asked the Commission to accept that agenda. The Commission reviewed his proposed agenda and found it unacceptable. The Commission formally voted to reject the Mayor's agenda and accept the agenda as I had presented it to the Mayor the previous day via e-mail. While it may seem a simple matter to schedule the special joint meeting utilizing the approved agenda, it turned out that this is not the case. When discussing the posting of the scheduled April 11 special joint meeting with the City Clerk earlier in the month, I was surprised when she informed that she could not post for a special joint meeting between the Council and the Commission because there had been no such direction from Council. She elaborated that a special meeting must be called for by either the Mayor or two Council members, and that this has not taken place. I assume she double-checked on this with the Mayor. This then leaves the status of a special joint meeting up in the air. We have an agenda formally approved and adopted by the Commission that was verbally approved by the Mayor, and we had what seemed to me to be intentions on both sides to hold the special joint meeting. I am proposing to the City Council to reschedule the special joint meeting from April 11, 2013 to May 16th or May 30th. If the Council confirms one of these two dates, then please immediately contact the City Clerk and inform her of who is calling for the special joint meeting so that Julie can then post the rescheduled special joint meeting. I will await confirmation of the special joint meeting from the City Clerk. If the preceding is an indication that Council wishes to opt out on the special joint meeting, that is of course your prerogative as City Council. As always, the Charter Commission is willing to honor formal requests from the City Council. FYI the next regular Charter Commission meeting is July 11, 2013 at 6:30 PM Best regards, Chair Lyden, Lino Lakes Charter Commission Julie Bartell From: Julie Bartell Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:31 AM To: Dale Stoesz (dale.stoesz@ci.lino-Iakes.mn.us); Dave Roeser; Jeff O'Donnell ; Jeff Reinert ; Rob Rafferty; Rob Rafferty Cc: Jeff Karlson; Michael Grochala Subject: FW: Charter Commission Meeting is NOW CANCELED --PLEASE REPLY Importance: High Cancelation notice for the Charter Commission meeting follows. From: Caroline Dahl [mailto:denali2010@q.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:32 PM To: Julie Bartell Cc: lillydogcute; Caroline Dahl Subject: Fwd: Charter Commission Meeting is NOW CANCELED --PLEASE REPLY Importance: High Dear Julie, Please notify the City Council the Special Joint Charter Commission (Charter Commission and City Council) is now canceled. Thank you, Caroline Dahl Vice Chair From: "Caroline Dahl" <denali2010Aq.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:26:14 PM Subject: Charter Commission Meeting is NOW CANCELED --PLEASE REPLY (April 10, 2013) Dear Commissioners, Due to the winter snowstorm the Special Joint Charter Commission meeting between the Charter Commission and City Council for Thursday, April 11, 2013 at 6:30 PM is now canceled. The meeting has been tentatively set for Thursday, April 25, 2013 at 6:30 PM. Please confirm that you have received this email. Thank you, Caroline Dahl Vice Chair `.. 1 Julie Bartell To: City Council 'c: Jeff Karison; Michael Grochala �+-Subject: Charter Commission Packet The packet for the April 11, 2013 Charter Commission meeting is attached for your information. As was announced by Acting Mayor O'Donnell at last Monday's council meeting, this is not a joint meeting. A possible quorum of the council has been noticed however, in case council members want to attend. Charter Packet 4-11-13.pdf Julie Bartell City Clerk City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 651-982-2406 651-982-2499 fax iulie. bartell(a�ci. lino -lakes. mn. us 1 Attention The Lino Lakes Charter Commission Meeting of April 11, 2013 has been canceled The meeting is tentatively rescheduled to April 25, 6:30 pm J COMPARISON OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT RULES, CITY OF LINO LAKES Topic Chapter 429 Existing Charter Task Force Proposal Charter Commission Proposal Citizen Proposal 1. Scope/Applicability Governs only imps. paid in part with assessments. Same as Ch. 429. Same as Ch. 429. Governs imps. paid with assessments or general revenues. No assessments or gen. revs. to open new areas. No assessment for maintenance. Same as Charter Commission Proposal. 2. Measurement/ Allocation Benefits=market value increase. Roughly proportionate. Same as Ch. 429. Same as Ch. 429. Direct benefit to occupied property. Adjacent/nearby. Uniform. Same as Charter Commission Proposal. 3. 100% Petition Owners of all abutting property, assess all cost. No hearing, majority vote. All benefited owners, assess -all cost. Hearing required. 60 -day waiting period (waivable to 10 days). Same as Ch. 429. Same as Ch. 429. _ Same as Charter Commission Proposal. 4. < 100% Petition If 35% of frontage, majority vote to approve. If <35% or council initiated, 4/5 vote to approve. If 25% of benefited owners, majority vote to initiate. If <25% or council initiated, 4/5 vote to initiate. If 35% of abutting owners, majority vote to approve. If <35% or council initiated, 4/5 vote to approve. If 25% of owners (or lots?), majority vote to initiate. If <25% or council initiated, 4/5 vote to initiate. Same as Charter Commission Proposal. Topic Chapter 429 Existing Charter Task Force Proposal Charter Commission Proposal Citizen Proposal 5. Hearings, Subsequent Petitions 10 days mailed, two weeks published notice of hearing. Approve w/in 6 mos. after hearing. Two weeks mailed, published notice of hearing. 60 days to file petitions against/for. 10 days mailed, two weeks published notice of hearing. If >50% owners object, special meeting at least 45 days later. If >50% file petition against within 30 days after special mtg., no project. t0 days mailed, two weeks published notice of hearing. Feasibility study of alternatives. 60 days to vote for preferred alternative. Council must approve alternative with most votes; or no project if most prefer none. 10 days mailed, two weeks published notice of hearing. If >50% file petition against within 30 days, no project. If funded partly from general fund, 60 days for taxpayer petition against. If >19% of registered voters file against within 60 -day period, no project. 6. Referendum None. If funded in part from general fund, must hold referendum. Same as Ch. 429. If funded in part from general revenue, 60 days for petition to hold referendum. If 12% of votes in last mayoral election file within 60 days, must hold referendum.. Same as Ch. 429; but see petition against, above. 7. Cost Increase No limitations. Bids can't exceed estimate by >10%. Only one re -bid. Same as Ch. 429. Same as Existing Charter. Same as Existing Charter. 8. Special Areas Not applicable. Ch. 429 governs in three special areas. Single family opt- out. Same as Existing Charter, except no single family opt- out. Ch. 429 partly governs in one special area; two special areas deleted. Revised single family opt - out. Same as Charter Commission Proposal. COMPARISON OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT RULES, CITY OF LINO LADS Topic Chapter 429 Existing Charter Task Force Proposal Charter Cominission Proposal Citizen Proposal 1. Scope/Applicability Governs only imps. paid in part with assessments. Same as Ch. 429. Same as Ch. 429. Governs imps. paid with assessments or general revenues. No assessments or gen. revs. to open new areas. No assessment for maintenance. Same as Charter Commission Proposal. 2. Measurement/ Allocation Benefits=market value increase. Roughly proportionate. Same as Ch. 429. Same as Ch. 429. Direct benefit to occupied property. Adjacent/nearby. Uniform. Same as Charter Commission Proposal. 3. 100% Petition Owners of all abutting property, assess all cost. No hearing, majority vote. All benefited owners, assess all cost. Hearing required. 60 -day waiting period (waivable to 10 days). Same as Ch. 429. Same as Ch. 429. _ Same as Charter Commission Proposal. 4. < 100% Petition If 35% of frontage, majority vote to approve. If <35% or council initiated, 4/5 vote to approve. If 25% of benefited owners, majority vote to initiate. If <25% or council initiated, 4/5 vote to initiate. If 35% of abutting owners, majority vote to approve. If <35% or council initiated, 4/5 vote to approve. If 25% of owners (or lots?), majority vote to initiate. If <25% or council initiated, 4/5 vote to initiate. Same as Charter Commission Proposal. Topic Chapter 429 Existing Charter Task Force Proposal Charter Commission Proposal Citizen Proposal 5. Hearings, Subsequent Petitions 10 days mailed, two weeks published notice of hearing. Approve w/in 6 mos. after hearing. Two weeks mailed, published notice of hearing. 60 days to file petitions against/for. 10 days mailed, two weeks published notice of hearing. If >50% owners object, special meeting at least 45 days later. If >50% file petition against within 30 days after special mtg., no project. 10 days mailed, two weeks published notice of hearing. Feasibility study of alternatives. 60 days to vote for preferred alternative. Council must approve alternative with most votes; or no project if most prefer none. 10 days mailed, two weeks published notice of hearing. If >50% file petition against within 30 days, no project. If funded partly from general fund, 60 days for taxpayer petition against. If >19% of registered voters file against within 60-day period, no project. 6. Referendum None. If funded in part from general fund, must hold referendum. Same as Ch. 429. If funded in part from general revenue, 60 days for petition to hold referendum If 12% of votes in last mayoral election file within 60 days, must hold referendum.. Same as Ch. 429; but see petition against, above. 7. Cost Increase No limitations. Bids can't exceed estimate by >10%. Only one re-bid. Same as Ch. 429. Same as Existing Charter. Same as Existing Charter. 8. Special Areas Not applicable. Ch. 429 governs in three special areas. Single family opt- out. Same as Existing Charter, except no single family opt- out. Ch. 429 partly governs in one special area; two special areas deleted. Revised single family opt- out. Same as Charter Commission Proposal. 4-t--(A-144-a Out V L0.)k _ &ss i M 3 -Li _13 March 4, 2013 To: Mayor Jeff Reinert Councilmember Jeff O'Donnell Councilmember Rob Rafferty Councilmember Dave Roeser Councilmember Dale Stoesz From: Kelly Gunderson Current Charter Commissioner, past Secretary cc: Chris Lyden Chair, Charter Commission Thank you for considering the need for a professional secretarial service to take the minutes of the Charter Commission quarterly meetings. Attached you will find a proposal from TimeSavers Off Site Secretarial, Inc., the same service who previously completed the Charter Commission, until 2009 when budget decreases caused the Commission to forgo the service and have the Secretary/Commissioner take the minutes while participating in the meeting itself. Excluding the "Web Discount," please note that there are two rate options available, with the higher rate prevailing. When speaking to the owner of TimeSavers, she stated to me that most often the Base Rate was used in invoicing the Charter Commission quarterly meetings. In 2009, TimeSavers rate for the first hour at $126.25 For an estimated 2 1/2 hour meeting, an invoice at that rate calculates to $224.85. For reference, the last invoice submitted by the Charter Commission for TimeSavers was $188.75 in April 2009 at the Base Rate of $126.25 for the first hour and an unknown 30 minute rate. Traditionally, the Charter Commission contracted with TimeSavers only for regularly - scheduled meetings, held 4 times per year. Any special meetings were handled by the Commission Secretary. Included in this request is an extra meeting expected to take place this year jointly with the Commission and City Council. With that stated, the Charter Commission kindly requests an increase of $1,000.00 for the remainder of the Commission's 2013 budget for the purposes of contracting a professional secretarial service. The request would raise the total allotted for the Commission budget to $2,500.00 for 2013. I would be happy to answer any questions at any time regarding this request. Sincerely, Kelly Gunderson Charter Commissioner TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • March 1, 2013 Carolyn Dahl Charter Commission Vice Chair City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Dear Ms. Dahl: Thank you for asking about our rates to transcribe City of Lino Lakes Charter Commission meeting minutes. I have reviewed the Charter's meeting minutes that are posted on the City's website and would like to submit the following proposal with the understanding that the highest rate will prevail: Base Rate: Unit Rate: Base Rate of One Hundred Twenty -Nine and 00/100 dollars ($129.00) for any meeting up to one (1) hour (billable time) plus Thirty -One and 95/100 dollars ($31.95) for each thirty (30) minutes following the first one (1) hours; or Twenty -Eight and 00/100 dollars ($28.00) per hour for length of meeting, and fifteen (15) minutes prior to Call to Order and fifteen (15) minutes following Adjournment with a one and one-half (1.5) hour minimum; and Twelve and 55/100 dollars ($12.55) for each page of draft minutes prepared from notes of the recording secretary. Web Discount: The City of Lino Lakes shall receive a Twenty and 00/100 dollar ($20.00) per meeting discount for minutes transcribed via DVD or the webstream broadcast. The above quoted rates are based on the assumption that the meeting minutes will be printed in Times New Roman, 12 point, one inch margins (average), with a three line header and a one -line footer/page number. The draft meeting minutes will be formatted in MSWord and submitted via e-mail for the review and correction by your staff for preparation of final meeting minutes. As you know, Lino Lakes is familiar with TimeSaver from its past contract to transcribe City Council, Planning Commission, and Charter Commission meeting minutes. Please feel free to call me at: 612- 251-8999 if I can be of further assistance. I look forward to your response and the opportunity to once again work with Lino Lakes in this capacity. Sincerely, Carla Carla Wirth Owner 28601 Hub Drive • Madison Lake, MN 56063 • 612-251-8999 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • Since 1985, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. (formerly Northern Counties Secretarial Services) has been providing a wide variety of office support services to individuals and businesses. We are word processing specialists who provide professionally prepared documents. TimeSaver's secretarial support services are used by companies and corporations throughout the metro area. We are an economical alternative to temporary help, full-time, or part-time employees, especially for companies that do not want to invest in additional equipment, furniture, and office space. Of special interest to municipalities and watershed districts is our recording secretarial service. TimeSaver has developed a special niche market for providing recording secretaries to municipalities, private corporations, and volunteer organizations. This service is especially attractive to clients who do not wish to become involved in the time-consuming process of replacing and/or retraining recording secretaries. TimeSaver designates a primary secretary for each account who then, if needed, is able to retrain a new secretary in the future. This system has been successful because it provides the client with consistent long-term service without added expense in the event of employee turnover. TimeSaver is currently responsible for providing recording secretaries to 33 accounts, which includes 24 municipalities (Andover, Anoka, Arden Hills, Blaine, Brooklyn Center, Champlin, Coon Rapids, Edina, Fogerty Ice Arena, Inver Grove Heights, Long Lake, Maple Grove, Medina, Mendota Heights, Mounds View, North Branch, Osseo, Roseville, Ramsey, St. Anthony, St. Louis Park, Vadnais Heights, Victoria, and Wayzata), in addition to Achieve Services, Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization, the Minnesota Government Finance Officers Association, Nine Mile Watershed District, Northwest Hennepin Human Services Council, Quad Cities Cable Communications Commission, Ramsey -Washington Watershed District, the Rice Creek Watershed District, and the Prior Lake — Spring Lake Watershed District. TimeSaver also provides recording secretaries to the city of Minnetonka on an as -needed basis. Desired minute content varies for each client, ranging from minutes that are almost verbatim to summary minutes. Because of TimeSaver's extensive municipal and watershed district experience, our staff is familiar with Robert's Rules of Order, municipal meeting procedures, topics of discussion, use of language, motions, etc. Our municipal clients can attest to our longevity in providing for their meeting minute needs. Our twenty-eight year history of quality work reflects the value we place on our clients. 28601 Hub Drive ♦ Madison Lake, MN 56063 ♦ 612-251-8999 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • Municipal References. City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Boulevard Andover, MN 55304 Michelle Hartner, City Clerk (612) 755-5100 City of Blaine 10801 Town Square Drive Blaine, MN 55449 Jane Cross, City Clerk (763) 784-6700 City of Champlin 11955 Champlin Drive Champlin, MN 55316 Roberta Colotti, City Clerk (763) 421-8100 City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Deb Mangen, City Clerk (952) 826-0408 City of St. Anthony 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony, MN 55418 Barb Suciu, City Clerk (612) 782-3313 City of Anoka 2015 First Avenue North Anoka, MN 55303 Amy Oehlers, City Clerk (763) 576-2700 City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Sharon Knutson, City Clerk (763) 569-3306 City of Coon Rapids 11155 Robinson Drive Coon Rapids, MN 55433 Cathy Sorensen, City Clerk (763) 767-6493 City of Maple Grove 12800 Arbor Lake Parkway Maple Grove, MN 55369 Stevie Koll Anderson, City Clerk (763) 494-6004 City of Wayzata 600 Rice Street Wayzata, MN 55391 Heidi Nelson, City Manager (952) 404-5309 28601 Hub Drive ♦ Madison Lake, MN 56063 • 612-251-8999