HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-25-2013 Charter PacketLINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION
AGENDA
6:30 PM
Thursday, July 25, 2013
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Setting the agenda
4. Open Mike / Public Comments
6:30 PM
5. Minutes: February 21, 2013
•
❖ Please understand, due to a death in Ms. Marty's immediate family she will be unable to attend
the July meeting.
6. Old Business
A. Commissioner Gunderson's report on Secretarial options for minute taking
for all Charter meetings.
B. Commissioner Gunderson's concern regarding the two meetings of October 11,
2012 and April 11, 2013 that had been postponed.
C. Last year, the City Council proposed two housekeeping amendments seeking to
bring dates and timing into compliance with the new State Statutes, Section 4.02.
Filing for Office and Section 8.04, Subdivision 2 Council suggested adoption of this
Charter amendment by ordinance.
7. New Business
A. Consideration of forming a subcommittee for the evaluation and confirmation of
city's public information regarding council's 2012 Charter amendment.
B. Term Expirations
8. Next meeting date, Thursday, October 10, 2013
Christopher Lyden
Chair
Caroline Dahl Margaret Penn
Vice Chair Secretary
Julie Bartell
1)tSh.do7(2,S'L3
rp r ow (rvdtrot wta, , \
From: Julie Bartell
,-'.Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 3:11 PM
To: Chris Lyden (lillydogcute@lycos.com)
Cc: 'Caroline Dahl'
Subject: FW: Charter Commission Letter
Attachments: 2013.CharterLetter-7.23.13x.docx; Chris Lyden April Letter.doc
(July 25, 2013)
Chris - I am forwarding two documents. Mayor Reinert and Council Member Stoesz request that these be given to all
Charter Commissioners.
Thank you.
Julie Bartell
City Clerk
City of Lino Lakes
600 Town Center Parkway
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
651-982-2406
651-982-2499 fax
julie. barteWci.lino-lakes. mn. us
i"\
1
(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
7/23/13,
To charter commission chair Chris Lyden and fellow charter commissioners,
This letter is in response to the attached letter sent to the city council by Chris Lyden dated 4/22/13.
The points made in the letter by Chris Lyden differ from the actual events and also differ from the will of
the charter commission as confirmed with their vote at the meeting held on November 8th, 2012.
Below is a recap of the vote that was recorded at the November 2012 charter commission meetings:
• At the November 8 charter commission meeting, Commissioner Storberg made a motion and
was passed by a majority of the attending members that the charter commission requests a
meeting with the city council in regard to the city council's amendment that appeared on the
ballot on November 6th, 2012.
• Commissioner Storberg stated that since most of the residents of Lino Lakes voted in favor of
the city councils amendment, obviously most residents feel that there is a need for a change to
the city charter. Commissioner Storberg went on to suggest that if the two groups could agree
to add some of the charter commissions original recommendations that were never forwarded
to the city council for consideration, that maybe enough members of the city council and
charter commission could agree to make some changes to the original council amendment. Each
group could then have a chance to vote on the revised amendment with the hope of updating
the charter by a vote from the two groups.
• Also, the meeting agenda is to include discussion on this one item, the meeting is to take place
on a neutral night and be facilitated by a neutral person approved by both groups.
To date there has been no formal request by the charter commission to meet with the city council
regarding Commissioner Storbergs motion. As soon as the charter commission requests a meeting that
reflects the motioned by Commissioner Storberg as stated in this letter, please forward it to the city
council. We then need only to select a date and a facilitator for the meeting. The city council will place
this topic on a future meeting agenda for discussion pending action by the charter commission.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
Dale Stoesz, City Council
Page 1 of 1
Julie Bartell
From: Chris Lyden <
went: Thursday, July 25, 2013 11:18 AM
co: Julie Bartell
Cc:
Subject: Please forward response to Mayor and Stoez email dated July 24, 2013
Julie, Please forward to Mayor and Stoesz:
(July 25, 2013)
Mayor Reinert and Council Member Stoesz,
I couldn't disgree more with both the premise and the content of the letter you've asked the City Clerk to
forward to me. I find your attempts to blur the facts and redefine the commission's actual vote to be completely
disrespectful and inappropriate. Your statement that "To date there has been no formal request by the charter
commission to meet with the city council regarding Commissioner Storbergs motion" is a complete disresgard
of the November 8 vote of the Commission. That vote reads as follows:
"MOTION by Commissioner Storberg, seconded by Commissioner Gunderson, to have the entire Council and
the entire Council meet together to discuss the provisions of Chapter 8.
AMENDMENT offered by Commissioner Timm that there be a tight agenda agreed to the Mayor and the
Commission Chair and that some procedural rules for discussion be defined."
Working within these parameters, the Mayor and I did agree on a tight agenda and some procedural rules.
However, on February 21 2013, the Mayor went before the Commission to renegotiate that agreement. The
''Commission voted to reject the Mayor's agenda and adopt the original agreed-upon agenda, which I had
presented.
As you know, on April 23, 2013 the Commission proposed two joint meeting dates, May 16 and May 30. An
official response to an official invitation is a minimal expectation, but Council chose to ignore the invitation,
failing not only to respond, but also failing to even discuss the matter. Three months have elapsed, and a joint
meeting has never been on any City Council agenda. Your July 23 correspondence is merely a personal e-mail
aimed at disguising Council's inaction, and the Charter commission will not be used by you to promote your
personal agenda.
What is taking place here is in fact an under the table solicitation to induce the Commission to initiate
something on your terms. The Mayor stated on February 21 that "Council is not driving this," and it is now
apparent that you seek to push the Commission into the driver's seat of your vehicle on your road aimed in the
direction of your choosing.
As always, the Charter Commission is willing to honor formal and proper requests from the City
Council. However, even after three months, we haven't received such a request. Attempted misrepresentations
such as these only serve to promote mistrust. It is not in the best interests of anyone, be it Council,
Commission, or the residents, to be party to such inappropriateness. The Charter commission will not be party
to this. To be clear, I will not legitimize your personal email by forwarding it through the office of the Chair to
the Charter Commission.
,-NIt is my most sincere wish that the Mayor and Council abandon these kinds of practices and instead begin to
deal with the Commission in good faith, rather than employing Chicago politics. I look forward to the day
when you recognize that dealing in an open, honest, and fair manner is the only way to truly resolve any
differences and/or arrive at the best outcome for all concerned.
1
Sincerely,
Christopher Lyden, Chair
Lino Lakes Charter Commission
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
�45
Charter Commission
February 21, 2013
Page 1
DATE
TIME STARTED
TIME ENDED
MEMBERS PRESENT
MEMBERS EXCUSED
MEMBERS UNEXCUSED
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT
OTHERS PRESENT:
DRAFT
CITY OF LINO LAKES
CHARTER COMMISSION
February 21, 2013
6:35 p.m.
8:35 p.m.
Bartsch, Dahl, Gunderson, Helgemoe, Lyden, Penn,
Storberg, Sutherland, Trehus, Turcotte, Williams
Aldentaler, Timm
Bretoi
None
Mayor Reinert; Council Members Rafferty and Stoesz
Resident John Dehaven
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Dahl called the meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission to order at 6:35 pm on
February 21, 2013.
OPEN MIKE
Mayor Reinert addressed the Commission regarding his discussion with Chair Lyden regarding
the proposed joint meeting between the Commission and the City Council. He distributed a
document that outlined an agenda for the discussion. He stated that the proposed attendance of
the Commission's attorney at the joint session was not totally dismissed. He also indicated that
the topic of having an outside resource (such as TimeSavers) provide secretarial services for
commission meetings was discussed at a Council work session and that staff are looking at the
costs involved. It is to be on the agenda for the next work session. At this point the reaction of
the Council is "no hoorays and no no -ways".
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
An item to be 7A was added under New Business, Secretarial Services. MOTION by
Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Sutherland, to approve the agenda as amended.
Motion passes unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION by Commissioner Sutherland, seconded by Commissioner Turcotte to approve the
minutes of November 8, as corrected. Motion passes unanimously
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Karen Marty Attorney expenses incurred — no new information
1
Charter Commission
February 21, 2013
Page 2
46
47 NEW BUSINESS
48
49 Secretarial Services.
50 Commissioner Gunderson reported that she could not find information about the continued
51 existence of Time Savers (the service used in the past). Her research led her to conclude that the
52 Commission would likely be contracting with an individual such as a legal secretary rather than a
53 service. Commissioner Gunderson indicated she would be willing to investigate the fees charged
54 for these services. Commissioner Sutherland said she has knowledge of secretarial resources as
55 does Commissioner Helgemoe whose wife has access to possible services. Commissioner
56 Trehus recommended reaching out to the former owner of Time Savers to determine if she could
57 provide referrals.
58 Mayor Reinert asked if the information about the fees could be forwarded to him so that he can
59 share them with the Council.
60
61 Shenandoah neighborhood
62 Chair Lyden indicated that a citizen had expressed concern about the condition of the roads in
63 their neighborhood. The citizen has written to the Council and has received no response. The
64 Chair proposes that the citizen be given a chance to have his concerns heard at a Commission
65 meeting.
66 Mayor Reinert commented that there is a comprehensive road maintenance plan and that it is
67 currently up-to-date and fully funded. However, he noted that the roads in the Shenandoah area
68 may be beyond repair and are likely to need re -building. After discussion among Commissioners
69 Chair Lyden indicated he would invite the citizen to attend a meeting.
70
71 Charter Commission's two amendments
72 Chair Lyden indicated that based on some information he had recently obtained the amendments
73 that had been proposed for the 2012 ballot were not unconstitutional as had been determined by
74 the City's Attorney.
75 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Sutherland, that Chair Lyden
76 engage Attorney Karen Marty regarding the Commission's two amendments for clarification and
77 to develop wording as appropriate. Motion passed with 1 abstention.
78 During the discussion of the motion, Commissioner Bartsch raised questions about the attorney's
79 competence. Commissioner Sutherland requested that a discussion of current legal services be
80 added as an item on the agenda for the next Commission meeting.
81
82 Commissioner Sutherland departed at 7:40 p.m.
83
84 Meeting between the Mayor and the Chair.
85 Chair Lyden reported on his meeting with the Mayor, commenting that the Mayor indicates he is
86 open and receptive to getting together to discuss some of the contentious issues that have been
87 the source of past conflict between the Council and the Commission. Chair Lyden reported that
88 as noted by the Mayor in the Open Mic discussion, the Council is showing willingness to change
89 their perspective on some funding items such as secretarial services for the Commission
90 meetings. However, in commenting on the proposed agenda distributed by the Mayor at the
2
Charter Commission
February 21, 2013
Page 3
91 beginning of the meeting, he said that what was being proposed by the Mayor did not align with
92 what they had discussed.
93 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Turcotte, to deny the agenda as
94 proposed by the Mayor and to propose the one proposed by the Chair.
95 That agenda is as follows: After the Charter Commission is done with the vote, if it is voted
96 down and no Commissioner has anything to add to the Council's Charter amendment, the
97 amendment fails. Any further consideration by one or more Charter Commissioners will require
98 a formal request to the Charter Commission for reviewing the City Council's 2012 proposed
99 Charter amendment. This concludes the joint meeting between the City Council and the Charter
100 Commission. The purpose of the meeting is consideration of adoption by ordinance the Charter
101 amendment as proposed by the City Council to the voters in 2012.
102
103 After a brief break the meeting reconvened at 8:13 p.m.
104 Motion passes with 2 opposed.
105 ADJOURN
106
107 MOTION by Commissioner Bartsch, seconded by Commissioner Turcotte, to adjourn the
108 meeting at 8:35 pm. Motion carried unanimously.
109
110
111
112 Respectfully Submitted,
L.13
114 Margaret (Marg) Penn
115 Commissioner and Secretary
3
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM 1D
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Karlson
MEETING DATE: March 25, 2013
TOPIC: Approval of Charter Commission Expenses
VOTE REQUIRED: 3/5
INTRODUCTION
The Council is being asked to approve Charter Commission expenditures for secretarial
services.
BACKGROUND
During the March 4 work session, Charter Commissioner Kelly Gunderson presented a
proposal from TimeSaver Secretarial, Inc. for transcribing Charter Commission meeting
minutes. The City Council agreed that contracting with TimeSaver would expedite the posting
of Charter minutes on the website. Mayor Reinert proposed authorizing expenditures for the
secretarial service for two meetings, at an estimated cost of $500.
Expenses for the secretarial service will be coded to a separate budget line item in the Charter
Administration budget. Later in the year, Finance will prepare a budget amendment for
Council authorization to transfer funds from the contingency fund to the Charter
Administration budget.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve additional expenditures for the transcription of Charter Commission meeting minutes
for two meetings with the stipulation that draft minutes be posted on the Charter website within
30 days of the meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
TimeSaver, Inc. Proposal
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: 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
Unit Rate: 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 fmal 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 o Madison Lake, MN 56063 # 612-251-8999
httick �
COUNCIL MINUTES March 25, 2013
APPROVED
711,(2 -s -1t3
1 CITY OF LINO LAKES
2 MINUTES
3
4
5 DATE : March 25, 2013
6 TIME STARTED : 6:30 p.m.
7 TIME ENDED : 7:10 p.m.
8 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Stoesz, O'Donnell, Rafferty,
9 Roeser, and Mayor Reinert
10 MEMBERS ABSENT
11
12 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Community Development Director Michael
13 Grochala; City Planner Katie Larsen; City Engineer Jason Wedel; Environmental Coordinator Marty
14 Asleson; Chief of Police John Swenson; and City Clerk Julie Bartell
15
16 PUBLIC COMMENT
17
18 James Langford, 7849 Main Street, thanked the council for their role in the recently approved trail
19 improvements in the area of his home. He also thanked the council for their good work in the area of
20 city budgeting.
21
22 SETTING THE AGENDA
.�•., 23
24 The agenda was approved as presented.
25
26 CONSENT AGENDA
27
28 Council Member O'Donnell moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items 1A through 1D, as
29 presented. Council Member Roeser seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.
30
31 ITEM ACTION
32
33 Consideration of Expenditures:
34
35 March 25, 2013 (Check No. 95307 -
36 95378, $204,783.55) Approved
37
38 Centennial Fire District (Check No. 5720 -
39 5742, $23,835.67) Approved
40
41 March 4, 2013 Work Session Minutes Approved
42
43 March 11, 2013 Council Meeting Minutes Approved
44
45 Charter Commission Expenses for Secretarial Services Approved
1
COUNCIL MINUTES March 25, 2013
APPROVED
46 Council Member Roeser, regarding Item 1D (Charter Commission expenses) noted that he agrees
47 with the city paying for these services. He would like to ensure that the added expenses are clearly
48 shown as an increase in their budget.
49
50 Mayor Reinert explained that the council has concurred that the city will pay for minute services for
51 two meetings of the commission and that the cost for that will be in addition to the $1,500 that the
52 commission receives annually.
53
54 FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
55
56 There was no report from the Finance Department.
57
58 ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT REPORT
59
60 3A) Two -Year Labor Agreement with IUOE Local 49 — Administrator Karlson reviewed the
61 terms of the agreement, noting that those terms are identical to what the police officers received for
62 the same period. Wages would increase by one percent for 2012 and one and half percent for 2013. It
63 includes a Memorandum of Understanding regarding implementation of a voluntary Personal Time
64 Off (PTO) program. Council Member Roeser noted that retroactive pay caused by the union's slow
65 negotiation process reduces the value of those funds to employees (through inflation).
66
67 Council Member O'Donnell moved to approve the agreement as presented. Council Member
68 Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice vote; Council Member Roeser voted "no".
69
70 PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT REPORT
71
72 There was no report from the Public Safety Department.
73
74 PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT
75
76 There was no report from the Public Services Department.
77
78 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORT
79
80 6A) Resolution No. 13-36, Execution of Anoka County Agreement for 2013 Residential
81 Recycling Program — Environmental Coordinator Asleson explained that each year the city runs its
82 recycling program through this County program. It allows for reimbursement of costs for certain
83 elements of the program. The total amount requested for reimbursement in 2013 is approximately
84 $74,000. Council Member Roeser complimented staff for doing a good job in improving the
85 recycling program. Mr. Roeser asked if the city is participating in any water conservation efforts and
86 Mr. Asleson noted a well -head protection group that meets regularly.
87
88 Council Member Roeser moved to approve Resolution No. 13-36 as presented. Council Member
89 Rafferty seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.
90
2
MARTY LAW FIRM, LLC
3800 American Blvd. W.
Suite 1500
Bloomington. MN 55431
May 24, 2013
Chris Lyden, Chair
Lino Lakes Charter Commission
600 Town Center Pkwy
Lino Lakes, 55014
Dear Chris:
Telephone: 952-921-5859
e-mail: kmarty@martylawfirm.com
Fax: 651-294-1026
Per your request, I have looked at the two Charter amendments proposed by the city
council. Both amendments seek to bring dates and timing into compliance with state law, and
make a minimum of changes to the Charter. Based on past discussions with you and other
Charter Commission members, 1 have made a few changes to the proposed language. The
revised language is attached in two versions. The first version shows the changes to the present
Charter, and explains the changes. The second version shows how the paragraphs would read if
the amendments passed. I also have attached a set of the changes without explanatory text.
Under Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 7, the Charter Commission may recommend a Charter
amendment to the city council, which may then enact it by ordinance. The city council must
publish a notice of a public hearing on the proposed amendment within a month of receiving the
Charter Commission's recommendation, must hold the public hearing between two weeks and a
month after publication of the notice, and must vote on the proposed amendment within one
month of the public hearing. If approved by all city council members, it would become effective
90 days after passage and publication (or later, if a later date is chosen), and if not stopped by a
petition seeking a referendum on the amendment.
Please let me know if you have further questions or concems.
Sincerely,
MARTY I.AW FIRM, LLC
Karen E. Marty
Attorney at Law
Proposed changes to the Charter
Amendment to Section 4.02
Comments: The dates in the existing Charter Section 4.02 match those in state law for
many elections. (Minn. Stat. § 205.13) The legislature is forever changing state law, though, and
some of the new requirements apply to charter cities and some do not. Tying the Charter
language to state law would standardize the dates, without further need to amend the Charter.
The language proposed by the city council is fine. If the Charter Commission wishes to
further clarify the Charter, it may propose the language below instead. The language below
eliminates potential arguments about which filing period applies.
Proposed language:
Section 4.02. Filing for Office. No earr thali swciity (70) days a,id slut laic,
Cu fifty six (5G) days bBefore any municipal election, any resident of the City qualified
under state law for elective office may, by filing an affidavit and by paying a filing fee to
the City Clerk in an amount as set by ordinance, or by means otherwise permitted by state
law, have his/her name placed on the municipal election ballot. The filing period shall be
as established by Minnesota state law for statutory cities.
Amendment to Section 8.04, Subdivision 2
Comments: Again, the language proposed by the city council is fine. However, in
speaking with Charter Commission members, I recall that the intent was to have the special
assessment issue on the next general election ballot. If there was not going to be a general
election within a reasonably short period of time, then a special election would be called.
General elections are preferred, because the city's share of the election costs is lower, and
because general elections tend to have a higher voter turnout than special elections. The
language below clarifies that the matter should be submitted at the next general election. Only if
no general election is expected, should a special election be called.
Proposed language:
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 withiu ode 1 t idicd
.. _, submit the proposed local
improvement and its assessment formula to the voters of the City at the next general
election. If no general election is scheduled .. -
. .
• .. . ..
.. . .
.. .. .
.. .. ..1
peg ie d to occur within 160 days after the conclusion of the public hearing, the Council
shall schedule a special election as soon as practicable to submit bywhiclr said
improvement and its associated assessment formula 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.
Proposed changes to the Charter
Amendment to Section 4.02
Section 4.02. Filing for Office. : • • •
thc,s lift �;� (56) days LBefore any municipal election, any resident of the City qualified
under state law for elective office may, by filing an affidavit and by paying a filing fee to
the City Clerk in an amount as set by ordinance, or by means otherwise permitted by state
law, have his/her name placed on the municipal election ballot. The filing period shall be
as established by Minnesota state law for statutory cities.
• . 1
Amendment to Section 8.04, Subdivision 2
.•1 •
Subdivision 2. Regardless of the provisions of Subdivision 1 of this section,
when less than one hundred (100°/x) 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 ,aithi,t c,n 4mndred
submit the proposed local
improvement and its assessment formula to the voters of the City at the next general
election. If no general election is scheduled .. '
period to occur within 160 days after the conclusion of the public hearing, the Council
shall schedule a special election as soon as practicable to submit brwhich said
improvement and its associated assessment formula 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.
: or.
• • 1
• • •
•
1 •
1 • •I
•
•
"Clean" copy of the language as proposed
Amendment to Section 4.02
Section 4.02. Filing for Office. Before any municipal election, any resident of the
City qualified under state law for elective office may, by filing an affidavit and by paying
a filing fee to the City Clerk in an amount as set by ordinance, or by means otherwise
permitted by state law, have his/her name placed on the municipal election ballot. The
filing period shall be as established by Minnesota state law for statutory cities.
Amendment to Section 8.04, Subdivision 2
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 submit the proposed
local improvement and its assessment formula to the voters of the City at the next general
election. If no general election is scheduled to occur within 160 days after the conclusion
of the public hearing, the Council shall schedule a special election as soon as practicable
to submit said improvement and its associated assessment formula 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.
Referral to the Lino Lakes Charter Commission
Agenda Item _
STAFF ORIGINATOR: Julie Bartell, City Clerk
MEETING DATE: July 14, 2011
TOPIC: Charter Amendments Relating to Elections
BACKGROUND
The city council received' the attached staff report at their work session on May 2,
2011. The report outlines two areas of the city charter that contain schedules related
to elections and that are impacted by recently enacted federal and state law changes
to the elections schedule.
The council respectfully requests that the Lino Lakes Charter Commission review the
amendments and consider a recommendation to adopt the amendments by ordinance
(under the provisions of State Statute 410.12, Subdivision 7).
ATTACHMENTS
Proposed Ordinances amending the City Charter
Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, Subdivision 7
WS — Item 10
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT ti..
Work Session Item #10
Date: May 2, 2011
To: City Council
From: Julie Bartell, City Clerk
Jean Viger, Deputy City Clerk
Re: Charter Amendments relating to Elections
Background
The United States Congress adopted legislation in 2009 requiring a period of 45 days for
absentee ballot voting to allow the time necessary for military and overseas voting. As a
result the Minnesota State Legislature adopted and the governor signed into law
legislation that adjusts state election law to accommodate the extended absentee balloting
period and other election administrative changes. These law changes have an impact on
the city's election calendar including when the city can receive filings for office and, in
the case of special improvement consideration, how long the city has to submit questions
to Anoka County for inclusion on the ballot. Since the City of Lino Lakes election
regulations are included in the city charter, staff is presenting the following suggestions
for amendments to the charter to concur with state and federal level changes.
1. Filing for Office. With the change in the absentee voting period, the filing period
reflected in Charter Section 4.02 is no longer appropriate. The filing period must occur at
least soon enough to allow the city to meet the deadline for getting names on the ballot.
The following changes to the City Charter would bring the city into conformance with
state law.
Section 4.02. Filing for Office. No carlicr than seventy (70) da}.'s and not latcr
than fixty six (56) days bBefore any municipal election, any resident of the City qualified
under state law for elective office may, by filing an affidavit and by paying a filing fee to
the City Clerk in an amount as set by ordinance, or by means otherwise permitted by
state lciw, have his/her name placed on the municipal election ballot. The fling period
shall be as established by Minnesota State lair. (Amended 1/25/88) (Amended
05/27/2003)
2. Special Improvements. The Lino Lakes City Charter contains provisions relative to
public improvements and special assessments (Chapter 8). Language within that section
of the charter is also impacted by the above -referenced election law changes. Under
current charter language, there would not be sufficient time to meet the deadline for
submission of ballot language and meet the charter requirements of: a) a public hearing;
b) the passing of 60 days before further action; and c) submission to the voters within 120
days of the public hearing. In order to allow sufficient time to satisfy both the Charter
requirements and the ballot notice requirements, it is suggested that the 120 day period be
increased to 160 days.
Also the city attorney has pointed out that the language in this section is not clear in
dictating when a special election must be held (if a general election isn't already
scheduled within the 120 or 160 day period) and that state law wouldn't allow the city to
hold a special election in the 19 weeks before a state primary election nor within 40 days
after a state general election. The language proposed would also clarify those points.
The following are the proposed changes to Section 8.04 of the Charter:
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 sixty (120)
160 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 general election
is scheduled during such one hundred twenty sixty 120). (160) day period, the Council
shall schedule a special election within said period unless otherwise prohibited by law, in
which event the special election shall be held as soon as reasonably practicable. 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
Charter Amendment Procedure. The charter amendment process is governed by state
statute, which provides more than one method by which a home rule charter can be
amended:
Petition — a petition meeting the requirements of state law can be submitted by
citizens and the question would be brought to the voters;
Amendment proposed by the council — the council may propose an
amendment by ordinance and, after review by the charter commission, may
present it to the voters;
Upon receiving a recommendation from the charter commission, the council
may enact a charter amendment by ordinance with an affirmative vote of all
council members (with a post approval waiting period of 90 days).
Requested Council Direction
It is requested that the council confirm that these amendments should be forwarded to the
Lino Lakes Charter Commission for their review. The next regular Charter Commission
meeting is scheduled for July 14, 2011.
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 2, 2011
APPROVED
179 The council concurred to accept the report and request that the Planning and Zoning
180 Board pay particular attention to zoning as they review the zoning ordinances that could
181 helpful in light of improving the underuse of properties. The council recommended that
182 the report be available for strategic planning. Staff should return for more discussion on
183 options that move ahead with the recommendations.
184
185 7. On -Street Parking Regulations — Community Development Director Grochala
186 explained that he is responding to a resident's concern about a dump truck parking on a
187 residential street. At this time the city doesn't have any regulations on street parking that
188 would deal with this type of issue. Is the council interested in developing more
189 restrictions?
190
191 A council member noted that it can become a safety issue (due to blocking the street) and
192 it seems as if some other cities are dealing with the problem. The Police Chief said he
193 checked the location and doesn't feel the street is too narrow for emergency vehicles; he
194 wonders if a restriction on commercial vehicles may be more appropriate. Mr. Grochala
195 suggested that "commercial vehicles" may be too general; discussions with the city
196 attorney came back to size limitations. Staff will review options and report back.
197
198 8. Anoka County Fiber Project - Administrator Karlson noted that the council
199 requested additional information on this recently discussed county wide fiber connectivity
200 project. The council is receiving a chart comparing our current provider with the services
201 proposed through the new project.
202
203 9. Candidate Website Links — City Clerk Bartell noted that the council recently
204 discussed the subject of voter information and it was suggested that staff review the
205 possibility of placing candidate web site links on the city's web site for local elections.
206 The council is receiving some examples of what other cities are doing in this area and
207 staff is seeking council direction on what policy this city would like to follow in the area.
208
209 Council members concurred that they would like to provide web site links for the coming
210 elections; staff will work further on a policy to guide the web use, including a disclaimer
211 for content, and such elements as timing.
212
213 10. Charter Amendments relating to Elections — City Clerk Bartell noted recent
214 changes in the election calendar (state and federal) and staffs effort to review this city's
215 election regulations to ensure they are appropriate within the new schedule. Since the city
216 charter contains election provisions, it was reviewed and staff did identify a couple of
217 areas where changes are recommended. A calendar was distributed and Clerk Bartell
218 explained that a key date is when the city must submit its ballot language to the county
219 for ballot printing. Based on the current charter provisions, the period designed for
220 candidate filing would extend past that date of ballot submission to the county. Therefore
221 staff is recommending a change that simply indicates that the city will follow state law for
222 the filing period, thus covering any future changes also. Community Development
223 Director Grochala noted that City Charter Chapter 8 also has a timeline that is
5
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 2, 2011
APPROVED
224 problematic with the ballot submission date moved up. The city attorney has
225 recommended language to address the change and also to clarify special election
226 references.
227
228 Ms. Bartell explained that the Charter Commission's regular meeting is coming up in July
229 and staff would like to present the proposed amendments to the commission. With a
230 positive recommendation from the Charter Commission, the amendments could be
231 approved with a unanimous affirmative vote of the council. The council concurred that
232 staff would forward the amendments to the commission.
233
234 11. Weekly Progress Report — There were no questions on the update as presented.
235 Staff will update the report to include the matter of the lease of the city facilities to the
236 school district (early childhood center).
237
238 Regular Council Agenda — There were no changes indicated to the council agenda as
239 presented. Administrator Karison noted that he will be meeting with Washington and
240 Anoka County officials relative to the outstanding valuation question that will be
241 discussed at the continued Board of Appeal meeting before the regular council meeting.
242
243 The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
244
245 These minutes were considered, corrected and approved at the regular Council meeting held on
246 May 23, 2011.
247
248
249
250
251 Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Jeff Reinert, Mayor
252
6
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:
Yom*
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.
Proposed Charter Amendment
Learn why your city council is proposing
a change to your city charter
Visit www.ci.l.ino--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
Shallp
chapter 8 ofcity 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 taw, except that: la) if more than 50%
of the property owners abutting the named streets il{he im rloveobjection,
ment after the secondhold
meeting secondCmore than
meeting
to take additional testimony; (b1 if the council ordersP
stop the improvement by filing objections within 30 days after the city council
50% of the affected owners may Pd valorem taxes,
ovement
action; and lc) if the cost of any improvement is to be paid in part from
red voters equal to et leashe Ptr12 percent
is subject to city-wide referendum if a timely petition is filed by reg
of the votes cast in the last general municipal election.nstead chapter 8 as amended pplies th oughout theoc city.
where state taw special assessment rules apply,
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 wilt 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- 't
director Mike Grochala at 651-982-2427 or
email michaeLgrochala@ci.lino-lakes.mn.us`,
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
reiy� �borhood 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 et noon and
7 p.m. Tuesday through Saturday during October
If you have questions call community developrrn' n
director- Mike Grochala at 651-982-2427 or
email michael.grochalaCpci.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
includine 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 eneineer
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 protect for one (l) 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 1149 (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 I ERS: To vote for a question, fill in the oval next to t _'e 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.
YES
CD 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:
htto://www.linolakes. aovoffice2.com/vertical/Sites/%78A2338B09-8316-4E17-A27A-
C25E01027DA7%70/uploads/Special Assessment Guide.pdf
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:
http://www.linolakes.aovoffce2.com/vertical/Sites/%78A2338809-8316-4E17 A27A-
C25E01027DA7%7D/uploads/429. pdf
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.
htto://www.linalakes.aovoffice2.com/vertical/sites/%7BA2338809-8316-4E17 A27A-
C25E01027DA7%7D/uoloads/%788A043C80-9FDC-422DA27E-2786074C2DFE%7D.FDF
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 proiect?
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). AH 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 riot 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
IV -FETING 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 (2ad
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, Sub& 5 provides that if any portion of the project is to be paid fronr
property 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 cast in the last general municipal election. Based on 2011
election -this number would be 5117 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 1 sr 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 aririitiona190 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' Rearlirtg: March 12, 2012
Publication: ,71iR.t 2
2012
21°Rewiing: Aucrust 13.
2012
Effective: (to Nov.
6.
2012 ballot1
CITY OF LINO LALKES
ORDINANCE NO. 05-12
AN ORDNANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE LINO LAZES 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 Improvement: and Levy Asse:rments.
The City ma.3• make any- type of public improvement: not forbidden by law and levy special
including all costs and expenses connected therewith, with interest Ne e- smear shall exceed
the benefits to the property.
Section 8.02. Effective Charter Provisions, Except as Provided in
Section x.07. Local improvements (the term "local irW+eat" smell mean a public
improvemen.+ financed pa-tly or wholly from special e.sseaements) shall be earned out
excl ;ively under the provisions of this Charter. (Amended 11!23493, O dinaace No. 93 19)
Section 8.03. Local Improvement Ordinances and Regulatio. Within one hundred
twenty (120) days after this Charter goes into effect and befeee leeal.ikapro vements can be acted
assessments. The ord:nance(s) shall provide a coEaplete werling Bode covering the
and the ccrtifying of unpaid assessment: for collection by the proper County officer. Said
improvements, all procedures in compliance therewith shall cozy to the reg 1ations as set
forthin such ordinance(:) and rs otherwise contained in this Charter.
Subdivision 1. A11 improvements to be paid for by special a:oessments against the
the Council, or, (2) a resolution adopted by a four fifths affirmative vote of all of the Council.
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 hea ing. Such resolution
shall be published twice, at least one week: apart, in the official newspaper of the City no lest
than two (2) weeks prior to the date of said hearing, and in addition—thereto, a copy of such
re: o1ution including estimate unit prices and estimated tetal price thereof shall be mailed to each
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
filed with the Council a petition asking that the improvement be made, signed by property
sigied the petition aninst 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
�. _
Council before such petition is presented to the Council.
Subdivision 2. Regardless of the provisions of Subdivision I of this section, when less
than one hundred (100%) percent of thc estimated cost of thc proposed improvement is to be
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
not proceed with the local improvement as proposed.
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
wthich the Council shall base their decision, the Council may by eaalution, at any time between
improvement. If after bids are received on the project the proposed contract excee''^ the
estimated coat of the engineer stated at the public hearing held under Subdivision 1 by more than
Subdivision 1. 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
, ,
cost of City services to streets, sidewaikc, or other public or private trreperty may be z :Pssed
g.03 of this chapter.
Section 8.06. When under the provisions of section 8.01, Subdivision 1, an improvement
is petitioned for by one hundred (100%) percent of the benefitted pFepept.y a •nem, such property
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 fmanred-in whole or in part from -special assessments.
Subdivision 2. For the purposes of any obiection or petition under this Chapter. (al each
parcel is considered to have one owner, and only one person or entity may sin an obiection 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 sien an
obiection 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 shell 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 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 publi hed 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.
Subdision 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
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. Notwithstandine
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 maiorityv 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 shR11 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 bv 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
mai ority 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 bepaid 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 Stitotes. section
475.58. subd- la shall apply.
subdivisions. the Council shall not vote on the same imppovenient with a neried erne (1) year
after the public hsarina on said improvement unles., it is determined bv 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. acept as provided in Subdivision 3, i In the geographic areas of the City
assessment for the financing of those improvements must be conducted in accordance :ith
proce3.ures specified in state law.
Subdivision 2. Subdivision 1 applies to Land within thrrec (3) geographic areas, each not
AREA NO. 1 Trunk Highway 17E19 (Hodgson Road) and County State Aid
Hii:hw: y 123 Intersection (Lake Drive)
.111 Government Lot 1, Section 30, T31, R22, PIN. 30 31 22 210001
State Tn. k Highway 1f19 (Hodgson Road) right of way
AREA NO. 2 Interstate I35E and County Road 212 (Main Street)
lntcrchaaae
Northeast one quarter (111) of Section 21
That part of the southeast one quarter (1/1) of Section 21 lying north of Cedar Street
East one hn?f (1/2) -of the northwest one quarter (1/1) of Section 24
AREA NO. 3 Interstate 135W and Trunk Highway *19 (Lake Drive)
Interchange
North one half (112) of the southwest one quarter (1/1) of Section 18
That part of the southwest one quarter (1/1) of Section 17 lying west of Trunk Highway
*49 (Lake Drive) right of way
Trude Highway 1119; thence northeasterly along said right of way line 938.11 feet (+
{= or ) feet -to the south line of said southeast one quarter (1/4) of the northwest one
quarter {1/1); thence wester along said south line 1021.59 feet (+ or ) to the point of
beginning.
The north 720 feet of that part of the soithwest one quarter (1/1) of the northeast one
That part of the north one half{112) of the northeast one quarter (1/4) of Sectien 17 lying
west of the Anoka County Park property
lying west of the Anoka County Park property
The south one half (113) of Southeast one quarter (1/1) of the southeast one quarter (1/4)
of Section 8
quarter (1/4) of Section &
The ast 330 feat (1 or ) of the north= _. -t one quarter (1/1) of the southeast one quartz
(1/1) of the southw st one quarter (1/1) of Section &
Subdivision 3. When construction of local improvements, the levy of special a^sc.-mcats
for thc financing of those improvements specially benefit a parcel of real property, in an arca
des ibcd in subdivision 2, on which a single family, owner occupied residential unit existed on
-September 30, 1993, thc owner/occupant of such residential unit may file a petition with the City
be filed with the City at or before thc first public hearina.to be he'd on the project. After the
filing of such petition thc City may not specially az ass such owner's property for thc
improvements contracted unless thc owner, at his'hei -option, in the fie elects to conn,.ct to or
Attest)3ulianne Bartell,,bity C er
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 CoundSl Member Roeser and won vote -being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
O'Donnell, Roeser, Rafferty, Reinert
The following voted against same:
None (Absent- Stoesz)
—">; YES -
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.
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
r ES 1
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
NO
City Council holds 2nd
PUBLIC HEARING to take
additional testimony,
hear concerns, work out
differences and revise
project, if necessary.
[----N.
RESIDENT ACTION
The Council can order
the project with or
without amendments
based on public
comment, without
increasing the project
scope.
The Council 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.
\ l
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
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.
PROCEDURE FOR AMENDMENT BY CHARTER COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Charter Commission Recommendation for Approval of Amendment by Ordinance:
• Charter Commission makes recommendation to Council by filing notice with City Clerk
• Within 1 month of filing notice with the City Clerk the Council must publish notice of a public
hearing of the proposal
• Notice must contain the text of the proposed amendment
• Public hearing must be held between 2 weeks and 1 month after notice is published
• Council must vote on amendment within 1 month of public hearing
• Amendment approved only if Council vote is unanimous
• Ordinance amending charter published in same manner as other ordinances of the City
• Ordinance becomes effective 90 days after passage and publication, unless a later date is
provided for in '`ie ordinance
• Within 60 days passage and publication, a petition signed by registered voters equal in
number to at least 5 percent of the registered voters in the City or 2,000, whichever is less, may
be submitted to force a referendum on the amendment.
• If voters fife a proper petition, the City must handle the amendment like any other charter
amendment, except the Council may submit the ordinance at a general or special election that
occurs within 60 days after filing the petition, or it may reconsider its action in adopting the
ordinance.
• If ordinance is submitted by the Council to the voters, language of the ballot question is
determined by the Council. The question must identify the amendment clearly and distinguish
the question from other questions on the same ballot.
Charter Commission Recommendation for Approval of Amendment by Election:
• Charter Commission makes recommendation to Council by filing notice with City Clerk
• Proposal must be submitted to Council at least 17 weeks prior to the general election
• Council must provide for election as long as amendment is constitutional and does not violate
state or federal law
• Language of the ballot question is determined by the Council. The question must identify the
amendment clearly and distinguish the question from other questions on the same ballot.
This summary of MN Statute is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as
legal advice. Persons seeking amendment of their City charter are advised to work cooperatively with
their City staff and to seek appropriate legal counsel.
Page 2
Anoka County Elections and Voter Registration - January 201
7/23/13,
To charter commission chair Chris Lyden and fellow charter commissioners,
This letter is in response to the attached letter sent to the city council by Chris Lyden dated 4/22/13.
The points made in the letter by Chris Lyden differ from the actual events and also differ from the will of
the charter commission as confirmed with their vote at the meeting held on November 8th, 2012.
Below is a recap of the vote that was recorded at the November 2012 charter commission meetings:
• At the November 8 charter commission meeting, Commissioner Storberg made a motion and
was passed by a majority of the attending members that the charter commission requests a
meeting with the city council in regard to the city council's amendment that appeared on the
ballot on November 6th, 2012.
• Commissioner Storberg stated that since most of the residents of Lino Lakes voted in favor of
the city councils amendment, obviously most residents feel that there is a need for a change to
the city charter. Commissioner Storberg went on to suggest that if the two groups could agree
to add some of the charter commissions original recommendations that were never forwarded
to the city council for consideration, that maybe enough members of the city council and
charter commission could agree to make some changes to the original council amendment. Each
group could then have a chance to vote on the revised amendment with the hope of updating
the charter by a vote from the two groups.
• Also, the meeting agenda is to include discussion on this one item, the meeting is to take place
on a neutral night and be facilitated by a neutral person approved by both groups.
To date there has been no formal request by the charter commission to meet with the city council
regarding Commissioner Storbergs motion. As soon as the charter commission requests a meeting that
reflects the motioned by Commissioner Storberg as stated in this letter, please forward it to the city
council. We then need only to select a date and a facilitator for the meeting. The city council will place
this topic on a future meeting agenda for discussion pending action by the charter commission.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
Dale Stoesz, City Council
Page 1 of 1
(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
(July 25, 2013)
Mayor Reinert and Council Member Stoesz,
I couldn't disgree more with both the premise and the content of the letter you've asked the City
Clerk to forward to me. I find your attempts to blur the facts and redefine the commission's
actual vote to be completely disrespectful and inappropriate. Your statement that "To date there
has been no formal request by the charter commission to meet with the city council regarding
Commissioner Storbergs motion" is a complete disresgard of the November 8 vote of the
Commission. That vote reads as follows:
"MOTION by Commissioner Storberg, seconded by Commissioner Gunderson, to have the
entire Council and the entire Council meet together to discuss the provisions of Chapter 8.
AMENDMENT offered by Commissioner Timm that there be a tight agenda agreed to the
Mayor and the Commission Chair and that some procedural rules for discussion be defined."
Working within these parameters, the Mayor and I did agree on a tight agenda and some
procedural rules. However, on February 21 2013, the Mayor went before the Commission to
renegotiate that agreement. The Commission voted to reject the Mayor's agenda and adopt the
original agreed-upon agenda, which I had presented.
As you know, on April 23, 2013 the Commission proposed two joint meeting dates, May 16 and
May 30. An official response to an official invitation is a minimal expectation, but Council
chose to ignore the invitation, failing not only to respond, but also failing to even discuss the
matter. Three months have elapsed, and a joint meeting has never been on any City Council
agenda. Your July 23 correspondence is merely a personal e-mail aimed at disguising Council's
inaction, and the Charter commission will not be used by you to promote your personal agenda.
What is taking place here is in fact an under the table solicitation to induce the Commission to
initiate something on your terms. The Mayor stated on February 21 that "Council is not driving
this," and it is now apparent that you seek to push the Commission into the driver's seat of your
vehicle on your road aimed in the direction of your choosing.
As always, the Charter Commission is willing to honor formal and proper requests from the City
Council. However, even after three months, we haven't received such a request. Attempted
misrepresentations such as these only serve to promote mistrust. It is not in the best interests of
anyone, be it Council, Commission, or the residents, to be party to such inappropriateness. The
Charter commission will not be party to this. To be clear, I will not legitimize your personal
email by forwarding it through the office of the Chair to the Charter Commission.
It is my most sincere wish that the Mayor and Council abandon these kinds of practices and
instead begin to deal with the Commission in good faith, rather than employing Chicago
politics. I look forward to the day when you recognize that dealing in an open, honest, and fair
manner is the only way to truly resolve any differences and/or arrive at the best outcome for all
concerned.
Sincerely,
Christopher Lyden, Chair
Lino Lakes Charter Commission
Julie Bartell
From: Chris Lyden <lillydogcute@lycos.com>
"""Cent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 11:18 AM
o: Julie Bartell
Cc: denali2010@q.com
Subject: Please forward response to Mayor and Stoez email dated July 24, 2013
Julie, Please forward to Mayor and Stoesz:
(July 25, 2013)
Mayor Reinert and Council Member Stoesz,
I couldn't disgree more with both the premise and the content of the letter you've asked the City Clerk to
forward to me. I find your attempts to blur the facts and redefine the commission's actual vote to be completely
disrespectful and inappropriate. Your statement that "To date there has been no formal request by the charter
commission to meet with the city council regarding Commissioner Storbergs motion" is a complete disresgard
of the November 8 vote of the Commission. That vote reads as follows:
"MOTION by Commissioner Storberg, seconded by Commissioner Gunderson, to have the entire Council and
the entire Council meet together to discuss the provisions of Chapter 8.
AMENDMENT offered by Commissioner Timm that there be a tight agenda agreed to the Mayor and the
Commission Chair and that some procedural rules for discussion be defined."
Working within these parameters, the Mayor and I did agree on a tight agenda and some procedural rules.
However, on February 21 2013, the Mayor went before the Commission to renegotiate that agreement. The
�:'ommission voted to reject the Mayor's agenda and adopt the original agreed-upon agenda, which I had
presented.
As you know, on April 23, 2013 the Commission proposed two joint meeting dates, May 16 and May 30. An
official response to an official invitation is a minimal expectation, but Council chose to ignore the invitation,
failing not only to respond, but also failing to even discuss the matter. Three months have elapsed, and a joint
meeting has never been on any City Council agenda. Your July 23 correspondence is merely a personal e-mail
aimed at disguising Council's inaction, and the Charter commission will not be used by you to promote your
personal agenda.
What is taking place here is in fact an under the table solicitation to induce the Commission to initiate
something on your terms. The Mayor stated on February 21 that "Council is not driving this," and it is now
apparent that you seek to push the Commission into the driver's seat of your vehicle on your road aimed in the
direction of your choosing.
As always, the Charter Commission is willing to honor formal and proper requests from the City
Council. However, even after three months, we haven't received such a request. Attempted misrepresentations
such as these only serve to promote mistrust. It is not in the best interests of anyone, be it Council,
Commission, or the residents, to be party to such inappropriateness. The Charter commission will not be party
to this. To be clear, I will not legitimize your personal email by forwarding it through the office of the Chair to
the Charter Commission.
'-.It is my most sincere wish that the Mayor and Council abandon these kinds of practices and instead begin to
deal with the Commission in good faith, rather than employing Chicago politics. I look forward to the day
when you recognize that dealing in an open, honest, and fair manner is the only way to truly resolve any
differences and/or arrive at the best outcome for all concerned.
1
Sincerely,
Christopher Lyden, Chair
Lino Lakes Charter Commission
2