Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-31-2013 Charter PacketLINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING PRESENTATION BY CITY STAFF ON COUNCIL PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT (CHAPTER 8) AGENDA THURSDAY, MAY 31, 2012 6:30 PM 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Setting the Agenda: Addition or Deletion of Agenda Items 4. Open Mike / Public Comments In Appreciation Certificate / Plaque ••• Jim Drennen 4 years 6:30 PM 5. Update: Chair Lyden • Exempt Zones - Ordinance • Commission request for $1400.00 for legal review on Council proposed Charter amendment • Audio — May 7, 2012 Council Work Session 6. Presentation by City Staff on City Council Proposed Charter Amendment (Chapter 8). A. Following the Presentation Commission discussion facilitated by Commissioner Sutherland 7. Resolution No. 12-01 90 Day Extension 8. New Business A. Next meeting date, Thursday, July 12, 2012 Adjournment Christopher Lyden Chair Caroline Dahl Margaret Penn Vice Chair Secretary MEMORANDUM DATE: July 7, 2008 TO: Mike Trehus, Charter Commission I ROM: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director RE: Response to Questions Below are my responses to the questions contained in your June 24, 2008 e-mail. My response is underlined and in bold. 1) If the City's most recent Charter amendment proposal were to be adopted and the exempt zones and their opt -out rights removed, would the residences who currently have sewer available but aren't hooked up yet then become subject to assessment for those existing utilities? In other words, would these properties be assessed retroactively once the charter change took effect, or would they grandfathered in, and wouldn't pay any money until the time of the hookup? The amendment proposal has no effect on the residences who already have utilities available. As with properties outside the charter exempt areas not previously assessed, a connection charze would be collected at the time of hook 2) If the exempt zones are removed, could the assessment amount and/or hookup charges for any future project(s) be any different for any of the properties currently in any of the exempt zones than how those properties would be treated if the exempt zones remain? No. Whether you are in or out of the exempt zone does not have an impact on the assessment amount or hook-up fee. The assessment amount or hook up fee may vary based on the project costs and the benefit received. The hook-up charge is increased annually to compensate for inflation and construction cost increase. This cast is applied uniformly to both exempt and non exempt properties. J:1Charter\Response t0 Charter Questions.dot 3) Over the past 16 years, some of these residential properties have been protected by the opt -out clause while the ownership, land use, and makeup of their neighborhoods has changed, in part due to non-residential zoning. Would removing the exempt zones and opt -out rights suddenly leave these property owners susceptible to expenses they might otherwise be protected from? Beyond this, do you see any way they might be harmed if the zones are eliminated? Is there any way a similar susceptibility could come about affecting any of the other properties in any exempt zone? Under the existing charter provisions an individual, owner occupied, single anvil residential unit within the charter exempt areas can opt out. Under the proposed amendment all property owners city wide are treated equally. If the exempt zones are eliminated than they could not opt -out individually, but rather would be subject to the decision of the majority of property owners within a specific project area. What might be the impact to the property values of the lots that would lose the opt -out rights (if any)? Additionally, could removing the exempt zones affect the property values of any of the properties in these 3 zones? No. The charter provision does not have any apparent relationship to property values. We sent this question and the proposed amendment to Mike Sutherland. Anoka County Assessor. His response was that the proposed amendment would not cause them to automatically adjust any property values. Property values are based on the market place, indicated by records of property sales. 5) In all 3 zones, could changing the rules governing assessable projects as is being proposed give any of those owners legitimate grounds to sue the city for damages (or incurred costs)? No. What would the damages be? Assessments, as governed by state law, are based on the special benefit received as a result of the project. 6) The Commission is looking for "before and after pictures" of how the proposed changes wouldlcould affect these properties. Is there anything else you can provide to help accomplish this? As noted in question no. 3, the only difference is that these properties would be subject to the same requirements as everyone else in the city. They could not opt -oast individually, but rather would be subject to the decision of the majority of property owners within a specific project area. Please feel free to contact me with questions at (651) 982-2427. is\Chaner Response to Charter Questions.dot 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS EXCUSED MEMBERS UNEXCUSED STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT GUESTS PRESENT APPROVED CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION : July 17, 2008 . 6:37 P.M. . 9:06 P.M. : Aldentaler, Bretoi, Carlson, Dahl, Drennen, Duffy, Gunderson, Lyden, Minar, Stockman Maher, Storberg, Trehus, Vacha, Williams, Zastrow : None : None : None : Deb Barnes, The Citizen (press) CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Duffy called the meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission to order at 6:37 p.m. on July 17, 2008. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Zastrow asked if the Commission can vote for or against the amendment this evening. Chair Duffy requested the addition of two items under New Business (agenda item #7): (1) discussion of the July 16, 2008 email from City Administrator Heitke, and (2) discussion of the open meeting law and communications between Charter Commission members. Chair Duffy also requested the addition of one item under Old Business (agenda item #6B) to discuss the recent Citizen article regarding the Legacy Project. MOTION by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Drennen, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. OPEN MIKE No one was present for open mike. Charter Commission July 17, 2008 Page 2 APPROVED 44 APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JUNE 18, 2008 45 46 Commissioner Bretoi requested lines 72 and 73 be amended to read "Commissioners Gunderson 47 and Bretoi prefer to vote in favor of something versus petitioning against something." 48 49 MOTION by Commissioner Zastrow, seconded by Commissioner Bretoi, to approve the June 18, 50 2008 Charter Commission meeting minutes, as amended. Motion carried unanimously. 51 52 OLD BUSINESS 53 54 A. Update on Charter Exempt Zones 55 56 Chair Duffy presented the email correspondence from Ms. Marty dated July 16, 2008 regarding 57 Q&A on Charter Exempt Zones, and the memo from Michael Grochala, Community 58 Development Director, dated July 7, 2008 in response to questions submitted to him by 59 Commissioner Trehus on June 24, 2008. 60 61 Commissioner Trehus stated he asked Mr. Grochala if he had had any conversations with 62 residents in exempt zones regarding the Charter amendment; Mr. Grochala replied he had not. 63 64 Commissioner Minar arrived at 6:51 p.m. 65 66 Commissioner Lyden suggested that letting the exempt zones go would be a viable option to 67 pursue. 68 69 Commissioner Trehus stated he could not think of any way those residents in the exempt zones 70 would be detrimentally affected and this would give them the same rights as all other residents. 71 72 Commissioner Lyden expressed some concern regarding the impact to property values of the lots 73 that would lose their opt out rights based on the response given by Mr. Grochala to question #4. 74 75 Commissioner Carlson suggested that rather than putting this on the ballot, the Commission 76 could request an ordinance change. 77 78 Commissioner Trehus concurred and stated there are only a few properties involved. He added 79 there are currently three exempt zones in the City and a provision was placed in the Charter that 80 specifically applies to them that indicates they do not have to pay assessments until such time as 81 they hook up; these properties would then be under the same Charter as everybody else in the 82 City. 83 84 MOTION by Commissioner Zastrow, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to send a proposal to 85 the City Council to approve by ordinance the elimination of Section 8.07 from the existing 86 Charter. Motion carried unanimously. 87 Charter Commission July 17, 2008 Page 3 APPROVED 88 B. Ballot Measure 89 90 Chair Duffy presented a 1995 article written by Kristi Belcamino in the Quad with the headline 91 "Charter amendment wasn't understood; anti -voters lauded for their effort." She noted the article 92 stated nothing could be done unless residents agreed to be assessed for repairs. 93 94 Discussion ensued regarding the pavement management plan and the contents of the 1995 Quad 95 article. 96 97 Commissioner Vacha stated the Charter Commission has spent a considerable amount of time 98 working on the amendment and felt it was important to proceed with the ballot measure. 99 100 Commissioner Lyden stated the Charter Commission's goal should be to put something on the 101 ballot that can get approved. 102 103 Commissioner Dahl stated she wants to see something approved that works for the residents and 104 added she did not feel the Council's amendment is the best thing for the residents. She stated it 105 will be difficult for residents to distinguish between the two proposals. 106 107 Commissioner Drennen stated the voters are going to have to review two complicated versions of 108 the amendment; the Charter Commission is attempting to accomplish the referendum and protect 109 that right for the citizens. He stated the germaine discussion should be how the Charter 110 Commission can best accomplish this. 111 112 The Charter Commission discussed two options: 113 114 Option A: Oppose the City amendment and offer no Charter Commission alternative at this 115 time (status quo) 116 Option B: Oppose the City amendment and offer a Charter Commission alternative 117 118 The Charter Commission discussed the pros and cons of each option. 119 120 Commissioner Drennen stated if the Commission determines it will not offer an alternative at 121 this time, it will be important for the Charter Commission to explain to residents the reasons for 122 its decision, including the fact that the Charter Commission does not want to take the risk of 123 confusing voters on this very complicated issue and that the Charter Commission is pulling back 124 at this time to focus on the issue before the residents, i.e., would you like to have a vote if 125 something impacts you or not? He stated the paramount goal of the Charter Commission is to act 126 on behalf of the residents. 127 128 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to reject the City 129 Council's proposed City Charter amendment. Motion carried (Commissioner Vacha abstained). 130 3 Charter Commission July 17, 2008 Page 4 APPROVED 131 MOTION by Commissioner Bretoi, seconded by Commissioner Gunderson, to offer no Charter 132 Commission amendment proposal at this time. 133 134 Further Discussion 135 136 Commissioner Bretoi stated there was an assumption when Commissioner Trehus made his 137 motion that it included refraining from submitting an alternative amendment at this time. He 138 stated he will withdraw his motion based on the understanding that by having accepted 139 Commissioner Trehus's motion to reject the City's proposal, the Charter Commission is not 140 going to offer an alternative proposal at this time. 141 142 Motion and second withdrawn. 143 144 The Charter Commission discussed the recent article regarding the Legacy Project and use of 145 public funds. 146 147 C. Communication Plan 148 149 Discussion ensued regarding the communication plan and the importance of stressing to voters 150 that the issue before them is very complex and the Charter Commission does not want to confuse 151 voters. 152 153 Commissioner Lyden stated the Charter Commission should consider submitting an editorial 154 regarding the Charter amendment. 155 156 Chair Duffy stated the Charter Commission could also submit an article for publication in the 157 City newsletter. She added it may be helpful to have two articles run side by side with 158 information about the amendment and Q&A. She added the Charter Commission cannot 159 advocate a position one way or the other and the article should simply state the facts. 160 161 It was the consensus of the Charter Commission to submit articles for publication regarding the 162 amendment and to include Q&A. 163 164 Commissioner Storberg arrived at 8:21 p.m. 165 166 Commissioner Gunderson suggested scheduling a meeting with the Quad press to make sure the 167 Charter Commission gets equal time and suggest to the Quad the inclusion of a split page article. 168 169 Commissioner Drennen stated the Charter Commission should review its communication plan 170 and determine the estimated cost for the plan. He offered to work on the communication plan; 171 Commissioners Trehus, Dahl, Lyden, Zastrow, Gunderson, and Duffy also agreed to work on the 172 communication plan. He also suggested sending out a press release. PN 173 Charter Commission July 17, 2008 Page 5 APPROVED 174 Commissioner Lyden suggested including information on the City's website and/or on public 175 television. 176 177 It was the consensus of the Charter Commission that the first priority for the communication plan 178 subcommittee is to prepare a cover letter to the City Council and to submit an article for the City 179 newsletter. 180 181 MOTION by Commissioner Bretoi, seconded by Commissioner Minar, to empower the 182 communication plan subcommittee to submit a communication on behalf of the entire Charter 183 Commission without having to come back to the entire body for approval. Motion carried 184 unanimously. 185 186 D. Statement of detailed expenses incurred up to July 2008 and Charter Budget 187 Balance 188 189 Chair Duffy presented the statement of detailed expenses through June 2008 and noted a balance 190 of $3,422.46. She added there will be some additional expenses incurred for TimeSaver Off Site 191 Secretarial and Marty Law Firm, resulting in a remaining balance of approximately $3,000. 192 193 Commissioner Dahl stated the Charter Commission will need to give consideration to its budget 194 request for 2009. 195 196 NEW BUSINESS 197 198 Chair Duffy presented the July 16, 2008 email from City Administrator Heitke inviting her to 199 provide an update at the August 4, 2008 City Council work session regarding the Charter 200 Commission's review of the Citizen's Task Force/Council-initiated amendment. 201 202 Commissioner Drennen suggested that Chair Duffy attend the August 4, 2008 City Council work 203 session and respectfully decline to offer any information whatsoever. 204 205 A. Next meeting date to be decided 206 207 It was the consensus of the Charter Commission to meet on Monday, September 15, 2008, at 208 6:30 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Charter Commission is scheduled for October 9, 2008. 209 210, B. Set next meeting agenda 211 212 It was the consensus of the Charter Commission that the September 15, 2008 meeting agenda 213 will include discussion of the communication plan and ballot question language. 214 5 Charter Commission July 17, 2008 Page 6 APPROVED 215 Miscellaneous 216 217 Chair Duffy stated that Chief Judge Gary Schurrer's term ended on June 30th and Timothy 218 Bloomquist is now the Chief Judge. 219 220 Open Meeting Law 221 222 Chair Duffy stated she discussed the open meeting law with the attorney and Ms. Marty has 223 assured her that everything sent thus far via email does not violate the open meeting law. She 224 reviewed the provision contained in the handbook from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding 225 use of technology and reminded all Commissioners to remain cognizant of the open meeting law. 226 227 ADJOURN 228 229 MOTION by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissionar Minar, to adjourn. Motion carried 230 unanimously. 231 232 Respectfully submitted, 233 234 Barbara Hughes 235 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 6 (Sent via e -mail -July 18, 2008) July 18, 2008 Dear Honorable Mayor Bergeson: The Lino Lakes Charter Commission has received and reviewed the 2008 Council's Task Force Amendment proposal. In response, on July 17, 2008, the Commission voted to reject this proposal. In addition, the Commission voted to recommend that the city council repeal Section 8.07 of Chapter 8 of the existing City Charter by ordinance pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes 410.12 Subd. 7. The Charter Commission recommends the repeal of Section 8.07 of the existing Charter because it agrees with the current city council that having special provisions for certain segments of the city are not in the city's best interests. The Commission feels that it is best that the entire city abide by the same set of rules. The Commission finds in the proposed Council Task Force amendment that the neighborhood process to decide potential improvements is confusing, conflicting, and unworkable. Also, the Commission wants to keep residents' rights to referendum on street reconstruction projects. After careful review and deliberation, the Charter Commission has determined that the revised Council Task Force amendment does not adequately meet the needs of the citizens of Lino Lakes. Respectfully, Cori Duffy Chair, Lino Lakes Charter Commission cc: Julie Bartell, City Clerk Julie Bartell #4'ff rorn: Caroline Dahl <denaii2010@q.com> ,ent: Friday, May 25, 2012 12:32 PM To: Julie Bartell Subject: Fwd: Charter Estimate importance: High From: "Jeff Karison" <Teff.karlson@ci.lino-lakes.rnn.us> To: "Caroline Dahl" <denali2010Zq.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 8:32:47 AM Subject: RE: Charter Estimate The Council has not taken any action on this yet. From: Caroline Dahl Finailto:denali2010CTq.coml Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 8:27 AM To: Jeff Karison Cc: Julie Bartell; lillydogcute; Dahl, Caroline Subject: Fwd: Charter Estimate Importance: High ,May 23, 2012) Dear Mr. Jeff Karison, What is the official City Council response to the Charter Commission's request per Karen Marty's estimate, $1400.00, legal review of the City CounciI's proposed Charter amendment? Cordially, Caroline Dahl, Vice Chair Lino Lakes Charter Commission From: "Caroline Dahl" <denali201004q.com> To: "Julie Bartell"<iulie.bartellieb,ci.lino-lakes.mn.us> Cc: "lillydogcute" <lillydoacute@lycos.com>, "denali2010" <denali2010(a,q.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 1:25:02 PM Subject: Charter Estimate (May 1, 2012) Hi Julie, Below is our attorney's estimate for reviewing the City Council's proposed Charter amendment. Please forward to the Mayor and Council for the Council's work session May 7th. The Charter Commission is requesting an additional $1400.00 to cover legal review of the City Council's proposed Charter amendment. Thank you, Caroline Dahl Vice Chair Lino Lakes Charter Commission i ' Throline, I would estimate this will need a budget of about $1400 for analysis, review, and meeting to discuss and address the proposed charter amendment. Karen E. Marty ae\t WIAR-rr LAW Pte, LLC Karen E. Marty MARTY LAW FIRM, LLC 3800 American Blvd. W., Suite 1500 Bloomington, MN 55431 952-921-5859 651-294-1026 (fax) 2 CITY:=.'. O F [Nal_ Christopher Lyden, Chair Lino Lakes Charter Commission 6275 Holly Drive W Lino Lakes, MIN 55038 RE: Proposed City Charter Amendment Dear Chair Lyden, KED SENT VIA U.S. MAIL and DELIVERED VIA MESSENGER March 13, 2012 The Lino Lakes City Council has been considering a proposed amendment to the City Charter, Chapter 8 regarding Public Improvements and Special Assessments. The amendment is based on the charter amendment proposal prepared in 2007 by the Citizen' s Task Force to Review Charter Provisions Pertaining to Public Improvements (the "Task Force Amendment"). Historically the Task Force Amendment was referred to the Charter Commission in 2007 and in response the Charter Commission submitted a substitute amendment to Chapter 8 (the "Charter Commission Amendment"). After careful review, the council determined to submit neither the Task Force Amendment nor the Charter Commission proposed amendment to the voters. Rather on March 24, 2008 the Council approved the first reading of a new ordinance amending Chapter 8 (the "2008 Council Amendment") and referred it to the Commission for required review. The only difference between the Task Force Amendment and the 2008 Council Amendment is that the latter repeals Section 8.07 of the City Charter that establishes certain rules for certain geographical areas of the city commonly known as the "exempt zones". Before the Charter Commission review period on this amendment ended, a citizen generated petition was submitted calling for an amendment to Chapter 8. Once the petition was certified it was required, under state statute, to go to the voters and thus the Council decided to send only that one question forward. As previously noted, the Council has currently been reviewing the Task Force Amendment. Through deliberations, the council has determined that the following additions to the Task Force Amendment are appropriate: 1. Section 8.02, Subd. 5 provides that if any portion of the project is to be paid from property taxes, registered voters may file a petition requesting a vote on the improvement. Such petition must be received within 30 days of the City Council ordering the improvement and be signed by registered voters equal to at least 12 percent of the votes cast in the last general municipal election. Based on 2011 election this number would be 517 signatures. In such case, the city may only proceed after obtaining approval of a majority of the voters voting on the question. 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014-1182 Phone: 651-982-2400 • Fax: 651-982-2499 2. Section 8.02, Subd. 6 states that in the event the ballot question fails, the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 475.58, subd. la 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. 3. Minor technical clarifications as follows: Section 8.01, Subd. 3, Line 4, added the word "local" before improvement. Section 8.02, Subd. 3, added last sentence. Section 8.02, Subd. 4, Line 3, added the word "thereafter" before apply. Section 8.02, Subd. 4, Line 6, added phrase "and Subdivisions 5 and 6." With these additions, a new charter amendment ordinance has been prepared (the "2012 Council Amendment"). On March 12, 2012 the Lino Lakes City Council approved the 1st reading of the 2012 Council Amendment, Ordinance No. 05-12 Amending Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter, Regarding Public Improvements and Special Assessments. The Council hereby submits this amendment for review and comment by the Charter Commission in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, subd. 5. It is requested that the Charter Commission review the 2012 Council Amendment and respond to the Council within 60 days after the date of this letter. The Council understands that the Charter Commission may extend the time for review by an additional 90 days if (within the initial 60 -day period) the Commission files with the Council a resolution determining that additional time is needed. The Council appreciates your efforts, and looks forward to receiving your input on this amendment. Sincerely, 3uliBartell City Clerk Cc: Caroline Dahl, Charter Commission Vice Chair Enclosure: Ordinance No. 05-12 1st Reading: March 12, 2012 Publication: 2nd Reading: Effective: CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. 05-12 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE LINO LAKES CITY CHARTER, REGARDING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes does ordain: Section 1. That Chapter 8, Section 8.01, 8.02, 8.03, 8.04, 8.05 and 8.06 of the Lino Lakes City Charter be and are hereby repealed: 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 The total assessments for any local improvement may not exceed the cost of the improvement, 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 twenty (120) days after this Charter goes into effect and before local improvements can be acted assessments. The ordinance(s) shall provide a complete working code covering the of assessments, penalties for delinquency in making payments, financing of said assessments, and the certifying of unpaid assessments for collection by the ppoper 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. Subdivision 1. All improvements to be paid for by special aese:f.ents against 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 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 said hearing. Failure to give mailed notice, or any defects in the notice, shall not invalidate the petitioners for or against the proposed improvement. At such hearing the City Council shall the proposed improvement cost. A period of sixty (60) days shall elapse after the public hearing .41 such sixty (60) day period, in a petitioning process independent of the initiating process, a for, signed by a number of the owners proposed to be assessed for such improvement, at least equal to the number of tho: c who peed for the moment, the Council 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 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. 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. subdivision, and the public record f the proposed imp lent contains all of the evidence on but may rebid the project for one (1) time only. Subdivision 1. When a proposed imprewement 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. 8.03 of this chapter. Section 8.06. When under the provisions of section 8.01, Subdi4sion 1, an improvement is petitioned for by one hundred (100%) percent of the benefitted preperiy owners, such property owners may after the mailing of notice of a public hearing, petition to waive fifty (50) of the proposed project. (Amended) Section 2. That Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter be amended by adding thereto a new Section 8.01 to read as follows: Section 8.01. Local Improvements Defined; Charter Provisions Effective. Subdivision 1. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term "local improvements" means any public improvements financed in whole or in part from special assessments. Subdivision 2. For the purposes of any objection or petition under this Chapter, (a) each parcel is considered to have one owner, and only one person or entity may sign an objection or petition on behalf of any additional owners of that parcel;_ and (b) if the same person or entity owns more than one parcel affected by a local improvement, that person or entity may sign an objection or petition only once; and (c) for the purpose of identifying recipients of any notice under this Chapter, owners are determined in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. Section 429.031, subdivision 1. Subdivision 3. The City may undertake any local improvements not forbidden by law and levy special assessments to pay all or any part of the cost of such local improvements. The principal amount of special assessments for any local improvements shall not exceed the cost of the local improvement, including all design, financing and related costs. and shall not exceed the benefit to the property determined in accordance with state law. Subdivision 4. Local improvements shall be carried out exclusively under the provisions of this Charter. except to the extent otherwise provided in Section 8.02. Section 3. That Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter be amended by adding thereto a new Section 8.02 to read as follows: Section 8.02. Local Improvement Procedure. Subdivision 1. Local improvements shall be carried out in accordance with state law, except as provided in this Section. Subdivision 2. If more than 50 percent of the owners of the real property abutting on the streets named in the mailed notice of the improvement hearing under Minnesota Statutes. Section 429.031, subdivision 1 sign written objections regarding the local improvements. and file such objections with the city clerk prior to the improvement hearing or present such objections to the presiding officer at the hearing, then after the hearing the council shall schedule a special meeting to be held at least 45 days after the date of the hearing. At least 10 days prior to the date of the special meeting, the city shall publish notice of the special meeting and mail notice of the special meeting to all owners who received the initial notice under Section 429.031. subdivision 1. Such published and mailed notice shall include all the information provided in the initial mailed notice, along with a statement as to the number and percentage of affected owners who filed objections at or before the hearing. At the special meeting, the council shall hear additional testimony on behalf of any objecting property owners, and may consider further written or oral testimony from appropriate city officials and other witnesses, as to the nature of the local improvements, the advisability of proceeding with such local improvements, the proposed financing for such local improvements, any proposed amendments to the plans or financing for such local improvements. and the methodology used to calculate individual special assessments for such local improvements. Subdivision 3. A resolution ordering the local improvements (as such 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 date of the resolution, the resolution does not become effective and the local improvement is not ordered. Any objections filed under Section 8.02, Subdivision 2 will not constitute objections under this Subdivision 3. If the required number of owners do not file a rte. 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 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. 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 oblig,-ation 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. 1 a shall apply. Subdivision 5. 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. unless it is determined by the Council that a sooner 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 in Subdivision 3, i In the geographic areas of the City described in Subdivision 2, the construction of local improvements, the levy of special assessment for the financing of those improvements Faust 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 130 acres, legally described as follows: AREA NO. 1 Trunk Highway ft19 (Hodgson Road) and County State Aid Highway 1123 Intersection (Lake Drive) All Government Lot 1, Section 30, T31, R22, PIN. 30 31 22 210001 That part of Lots 11, 15, 16 and 17, Auditor's Subdivision No. 151 lying south and east of State Trunk Highway 1t49 (Hodgson Road) right of way AREA NO. 2 Interstate 135E and County Road 242 (Main Street) Interchangc Northeast one quarter (1/4) of Section 21 East one half (1/2) of the southwest one quarter (111) of Section 21 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 1S That part of the south one half (1/2) of the southwest one quarter (1/1) of Section 18 lying north of the Interstate I35W right of way ft19 (Lake Drive) right of way All of the northwest one quarter (1/1) of Section 17 with the exception of that part of the southeast one quarter (1/1) of said northwest one quarter (1/1) of Section 17 as follows: beginning at a point at the intersection of the south line of said south nst one Trunk Highway ft19; thence nozeasterly along said right of way line 938.11 feet (+ or ) ; thence southeasterly 672. 39 {+ or ) feet to east line of said southeast one quarter (1/1); thence westerly along said south line 1021.59 feet (+ or ) to the point of beginning. That part of the north one half (1/2) of the northeast one quarter (1/1) 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 (1/1) of Section 17 lying west of the Anoka County Park property ,.� The east 330 feet (-L- or ) of the northeast one quarter (1/1) 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 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 Jeff Reinert, Mayor Attest: Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this day of , 2012. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council Member and was duly seconded by Council Member upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: and 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. City Council calls for Public Hearing; staff notifies affected property owners by mail and citizens by published legal notice. / 1 Affected property owners can submit written objection to the project. 1 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 CITY ACTION RESIDENT ACTION —> NO r 1 YES Council calfs for 2nd Hearing to be held at least 45 days after the 1st hearing. Staff notifies affected property owners by mail and citizens by published City Council holds 2nd PUBLIC HEARING to take additional testimony, hear concerns, work out differences and revise project, if necessary. 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 1 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 NO -. YES Project goes to Public Election. 51% of voters must approve the project or it is stopped. 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. Synopsis of Imp -lent Procedures Proposed Charter A. _ .tdment Comparison Topic Minn. Stat. Chapter 429' Charter Charter Amendment Proposal 1. Scope/Applicability Governs only improvements paid, in part, with special assessments Same as Ch. 429 Same as Ch. 429 2. Measurement/Allocation of Special Assessments Benefits = Market Value Increase. Roughly proportionate. Same as Ch. 429 Same as Ch. 429 3. Process by 100% Petition Reports, Hearings, Notices & Subsequent Petitions If initiated by 100% of abutting property owners and 100% costs assessed. No feasibility report required. No public hearing required. Council may order improvement by majority vote If initiated by 100% of benefitted property owners and 100% costs assessed. Feasibility report required. Public hearing required. Two weeks mailed, published notice of hearing. 60 day waiting period before any action can be taken (50 of the 60 days are waivable by subsequent petition). Council may order project by majority vote. Same as Ch. 429 Same as Ch. 429 Same as Ch. 429 Same as Ch. 429 4. Process by less than 100% Petition Reports, Hearings, Notices & Subsequent Petitions If initiated by 35% of abutting frontage, Council may order project by majority vote. If initiated by less than 35% of abutting frontage, Council may order project by 4/5 (super majority) vote. Feasibility report is required. 10 days mailed, two weeks published notice of hearing. Public hearing is required If petition received by 25% or more of benefited owners simple majority vote of council to initiate. If petition received by less than 25%of benefitted property owners a 4/5 vote (super majority) vote is required to initiate project. Feasibility report is required Two weeks mailed, published notice of hearing Public hearing is required No action may be taken by council for 60 days If initiated by 35% of abutting owners Council may order project by majority vote. If initiated by less than 35% of abutting owners Council may order project by 4/5 (super majority) vote. Feasibility report is required 10 days mailed, two weeks published notice of hearing. Public hearing is required If greater than 50% of abutting owners object before or at hearing, special meeting is held at least 45 days later. Hearings, Notices & Subsequent Petitions (continued) Council may order project within 6 months of hearing Property owners, proposed to be assessed, have 60 days following hearing to petition against/for project. If petition against is received signed by a majority of owners proposed to be assessed the project cannot proceed at the expense of property benefited. If no objection by petition or election, Council may proceed with the improvement between 60 days and 1 year after the public hearing. Council may order project within 6 months of special meeting. If greater than 50% of abutting owners file petition against within 30 days of council ordering project the project cannot proceed. 5. Referendum None Required. Must hold referendum If funded, in part, from general fund. Subject to reverse referendum if funded in part from ad valorem taxes. Referendum required only if a petition received signed by 12% of the votes cast in the last general city election is filed within 30 days after the project is ordered. 6. Reconsideration Not applicable If project is disallowed by petition or vote council shall not vote on same improvement within 1 year of the public hearing. If disallowed by election the question may not be resubmitted for 180 days from date of election. If disallowed a second time may not be resubmitted for 1 year from date of 2nd election 7. Cost Increase Not Applicable Bids cannot exceed estimate by greater than 10%. Only allowed to rebid once. Not Applicable 8. Special Areas Not Applicable Minn Stat. Chapter 429 governs in 3 special areas. Exception: Provides for opt out for single family owner occupied dwellings. No special areas proposed. 1 5/25/2012 r f Charter Commissioner Gunderson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION ITEM RESOLUTION NO. 12-01 RESOLUTION REQUESTING ADDITIONAL STATUTORY TIME PERIOD FOR CHARTER COMMISSION TO ACT ON CHARTER AMENDMENT ISSUE. Whereas, the City Council presented to the Charter Commission on, March 13, 2012 a potential amendment to Section 8 of the City's Charter. The Charter Commission has used their initial 60 days to study said potential amendment. Whereas, the Charter Commission has determined that more time is required to fully explore the issue of an amendment to the City Charter. Under the authority of MN Statutes §410.12, subdivision 5, the Charter Commission may be granted, upon request, an additional 90 days to respond to the potential amendment. Whereas, the Charter Commission is formally requesting this additional time period of 90 days from City Council under the authority of MN Statutes §410.12 subd.(5). NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Lino Lakes Charter Commission hereby requests the statutory 90 day time extension set out in MN Statutes §410.12, subd. (5). Passed by the Lino Lakes Charter Commission this twelfth day of April 2012. A Chrisopher L,• en, Chairperson This motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Charter Commissioner Sutherland, and upon vote being taken thereon, the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Charter Exempt Zone 1 Legend _! Single Family Owner Occupied Residences Charter Exempt Zone No. 2 Legend Single Family Owner Occupied Residences fl Charter Exempt Zone No. 3 Legend Single Family Owner Occupied Residences Cityof Lino Lakes Alan Rolek February 29, 2012 LN140-00086 Charter Review Through February 29, For All Legal Services 2/7/2012 2/7/2012 2/8/2012 2/8/2012 2/10/2012 2/13/2012 2/13/2012 2/21/2012 2/28/2012 2/29/2012 2012 As Follows: Page: 2 Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 200 South Sixth Street Suite 470 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Hours SJB Phone call with Grochala regarding 2008 city council 0.40 charter proposal; conference with M Manderschied regarding research SJB Phone call with M Grochala regarding charter amendment 0.25 process SJB Conference with M Manderschied regarding council -initiated charter; review prior memos on topic MJM Intraoffice conference with S Bubul regarding ability to 0.20 revive past charter amendment efforts SJB Review charter amendments; draft memo regarding same 3.00 SJB Finalize memo regarding charter commission authority; 2.50 conference with M Manderschied regarding 2008 city council amendment, process; email regarding need to re -start process 0.75 MJM SJB SJB SJB Research and summarize conclusions on timeliness of 1.70 city council initiated charter amendment Meet with staff regarding charter commission proposals; 2.50 review materials in preparation for same Phone call with Grochala regarding ch rter amendment 4, 3.00 Ike.%) ¢ 0�9 �v Inc e_ ie sS� even trn nc�� Phone call with Grochala et al regarding charter U 2.50 amendment; draft revision and email Amount 84.00 52.50 157.50 36.00 630.00 525.00 306.00 525.00 630.00 525.00 Total Services: $ 3,471.00 For All Disbursements As Follows: 2/13/2012 Westlaw Research Charges Total Disbursements: Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A. Page: 3 3/26/2012 JTS Prepare materials for Council workshop. 0.70 Sub -total Fees: 507.50 ION ''gL q Li Rate Summary Jay T. Squires 3.50 hours at $ 145.00/ hr. Total Hours: 3.50 4021-0080: Cartway Petition Professional Services Hours 3/1/2012 JJL Telephone conference with Mike Grochala regarding status of petition; 0.20 Office conference with Courtney Sebo regarding status of dissolution issue. 3/2/2012 CS Review by-laws of homeowners' association to determine how 0.40 property is dealt with upon association's dissolution. 3/5/2012 JJL Review status of road ownership, and availability of attorneys fees; 1.90 Analyze city cartway statute and procedure; Research ability to serve involuntarily dissolved nonprofit corporation. 3/6/2012 JJL Outline process for cartway approval by Council; Leave message for 0.70 Mike Grochala; Telephone conference with Mr. Grochala. 3/7/2012 JJL Draft letter to Mike Grochala outlining statutory cartway process. 2.00 3/12/2012 JJL Telephone conference with Mike Grochala and Julie Bartell regarding 0.30 cartway procedure. 3/21/2012 JJL Receive e-mail from Mike Grochala regarding Council resolution; 1.00 Telephone conference with Mr. Grochala; Revise resolution and e-mail to Mr. Grochala; Receive e-mail from Mr. Grochala regarding the legal description; Telephone conference with Mr. Grochala. 3/26/2012 JJL Telephone conference with Mike Grochala regarding property owner's 1.20 allegations about the petition; Receive and review e-mail from Mike Grochala regarding contiguity issue; Review statutory cartway "tract" language; Leave message for Mr. Grochala. 3/27/2012 JTS Review statute and e-mail to Mike regarding notice of hearing 0.30 requirements. 3/28/2012 JJL Telephone conference with Mike Grochala regarding cartway petition 0.20 schedule. Joseph J. Langel Courtney R. Sebo Jay T. Squires Sub -total Fees: Rate Summary 7.50 hours at $ 145.00/ hr. 0.40 hours at $ 125.00/ hr. 0.30 hours at $ 145.00/ hr. Total Hours: 8.20 4021-0081: Proposed Charter Amendments by Election Professional Services 3/12/2012 JJL Telephone conference with Mike Grochala and Julie Bartell regarding charter amendment process. Hours 0.20 Sub -total Fees: 29.00 From: Caroline Dahl [mailto:denali2010(a a.coml Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 5:28 PM To: Julie Bartell ,•4r: Iillydogcute; Caroline Dahl"michael.grochala Abject: Special Charter meeting Importance: High (May 18, 2012) Dear Julie, Please post the public notice for the Special Charter meeting for May 31, 2012 at 6:30 PM. Michael stated that the appropriated staff would be available to the Charter Commission: Michael Grochala, Steve Bubul, Bond Attorney, and Jason Wedel, City Engineer to the Charter Commission meeting. Thank you, Caroline Dahl Vice Chair Lino Lakes Charter Commission 2