Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-13-2006 Charter Packet✓`\ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ••••\21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Charter Commission July 13, 2006 Page 1 DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS EXCUSED MEMBERS UNEXCUSED STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT APPROVED CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION July 13, 2006 6:30 P.M. 9:30 P.M. Dahl, Aldentaler, Trehus, Handrick, Vacha, Bening, Duffy, Storberg, Warren, and Carlson Bor and Zastrow Rosemary Williams, Richard Williams and Montain None CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Warren called the regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission to order at 6:40 p.m. on July 13, 2006. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 9E, Surface Water Management was added under New Business. The agenda was approved as amended. OPEN MIKE No one was present for open mike. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 13, 2006 — Commissioner Duffy referred to line 69 and corrected the sentence to read, "She thought this item deals with invoice". She referred to line 124 and corrected the word "effect" to "affect". She referred to line 248 and removed the word "she". She referred to line 317 and corrected the sentence to read Commissioners Dahl, Duffy and Trehus". Commissioner Dahl referred to line 264 and corrected the sentence to read "Commissioner Dahl". MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Storberg, to approve the April 13, 2006, Charter Commission meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried. 1 Charter Commission July 13, 2006 Page 2 APPROVED 43 OLD BUSINESS 44 45 Ordinance Amendment regarding Council Members on the Charter Commission — Chair 46 Warren stated everyone received information on the process and options that were to be read 47 ahead of time. 48 49 Process: Information Only (Refer to line 286 & 287 in April 13, 2006 Minutes): 50 -Copy of May 12th Letter from Attorney, Mr. Hawkins and Letter from Chair Warren — 51 Chair Warren reviewed the options that were summarized in the memo dated June 23, 2006. 52 53 Recommendation(s) of Sub Committee: Citizen Charter Amendment — Commissioner 54 Trehus advised the sub committee is recommending changing the language and slightly changing 55 the proposal from the Council. The change would state a Council Member could serve on the 56 Charter Commission but could not vote. It would also state that Council Member would be 57 appointed the official liaison and include there would be no compensation. 58 59 Commissioner Bening stated that would limit the number of votes to fourteen members and 60 could result in ties. He noted there is no place in the Charter that indicated there is an appointed 61 liaison. 62 '63 Commissioner Duffy stated if the amendment goes through, the Commission may want to change 64 the by-laws to state that there are fifteen voting members and one non-voting member of the 65 Commission. 66 67 Commissioner Trehus advised state statute says there are only up to fifteen members on the 68 Charter Commission. 69 70 Commissioner Vacha stated he does not see any issue with a Council Member being on the 71 Commission and being able to vote. 72 73 Commissioner Carlson indicated support for the proposal as submitted by the Council. 74 75 Chair Warren clarified that the proposed change by the sub committee does not mandate a 76 Council Member serving on the Commission. 77 78 Commissioner Carlson suggested the Commission appoint its own liaison to the Council to 79 attend Council meetings. 80 81 Commissioner Trehus stated he does not believe there would be as much participation from a 82 liaison from the City Council compared to one that is a member of both boards. 83 84 MOTION by Commissioner Bening seconded by Commissioner Carlson to proceed with the 85 amendment as proposed by the City Council. 86 2 Charter Commission July 13, 2006 Page 3 APPROVED 87 Commissioner Trehus stated the Commission does have the option to say no to putting the 88 amendment on the ballot and recommending the proposed change be adopted as an ordinance. 89 He stated he believes the Commission should vote no and offer a recommendation to adopt the 90 amendment by ordinance to keep it off the ballot. 91 92 Chair Warren clarified the Commission has to vote on the proposed amendment. Then a vote 93 would be taken on the process that should be recommended to the Council to move forward. 94 95 Commissioner Bening called the question. 96 97 MOTION failed with Commissioner's Warren, Duffy, Dahl, Vacha, Handrick and Trehus voting 98 no. 99 100 Commissioner Bening excused himself from the meeting at 7:30 p.m. He advised he is opposed 101 to the proposed change to the amendment from the sub committee. 102 103 Commissioner Handrick referred to the proposal from the Council and suggested it be changed to 104 say that no Council Member shall be a voting member of the Commission. 105 106 Commissioner Trehus suggested the Commission go with the proposal from the Council adding •-.407 an amendment that states a member of the City Council may serve as a non-voting liaison to the 108 City Charter Commission. He stated he believes putting the amendment on the ballot implies 109 something bad happened in the past regarding this issue. 110 111 MOTION by Chair Warren, seconded by Commissioner Trehus, to approve the proposal 112 submitted by the Council adding an amendment that states one member of the City Council may 113 serve as a non-voting liaison to the City Charter Commission. 114 115 MOTION carried with Commissioner Vacha voting no. 116 117 MOTION by Commissioner Handrick, seconded by Commission Trehus, to recommend the 118 revised amendment be approved by ordinance. 119 120 Commissioner Dahl stated Mayor Bergeson has indicated this does not qualify for a special 121 election. 122 123 Commissioner Carlson made a friendly amendment to the motion to include "per Chapter 410.10 124 Subdivision 7. The makers of the motion agreed to the amendment. 125 126 MOTION carried with Commissioner Vacha voting no. 127 128 Road Reconstruction and Council Response — Chair Warren stated everyone received the /.-N429 City's response in regarding to road reconstruction. 130 3 Charter Commission July 13, 2006 Page 4 APPROVED 131 Commissioner Dahl stated she requested the information for the purpose of being updated only. 132 She suggested the Commission receive another update at the October meeting. 133 134 Five Year Plan Response — Chair Warren read the response from the City and stated there is no 135 public end date to the Five Year Plan. She stated there needs to be a plan to complete the plan. 136 137 Commissioner Duffy stated she does not believe there will be any new information on this until 138 January or February when the budget process is completed. 139 140 MOTION by Commissioner Duffy to table the Five Year Plan to the January 2007 meeting. 141 142 Commissioner Dahl and Trehus suggested another update should be given at the October meeting 143 to keep the City on task with the Plan. 144 145 Chair Warren suggested Commissioner Dahl requests clarification from the City regarding the 146 completion of the Five Year Plan. 147 148 Commissioner Duffy withdrew the motion. 149 150 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Dahl, to send a memo to the —151 City Administrator asking for clarification on the completion of the Five Year Plan. Motion 152 carried. 153 154 Quality of Life Survey - Chair Warren referred to the written response from the City regarding 155 this issue. 156 157 Kennedy and Graven Charter Review: YMCA and Legacy — Trehus (Refer to Line 76 in 158 April 13, 2006 Minutes) - Commissioner Trehus provided the background on this issue noting 159 the headings on the expenses have white out on them and the services were not paid for one year. 160 He added he is not aware of any concerns raised over this issue but more investigation could be 161 completed. 162 163 Chair Warren stated it appears that staff got legal opinions about the Charter. Staff can do that as 164 long as the fees do not come out of the Charter budget. 165 166 Commissioner Carlson read a memo from the Finance Director regarding this issue. The memo 167 stated the auditor indicated the expenses were handled in the proper manner. The auditor also 168 recommended the titles of the line items be changed to avoid confusion in the future. 169 170 Commissioner Dahl stated if staff is obtaining legal opinions related to the Charter the 171 Commission should have access to that information. 172 73 MOTION by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Storberg, to request copies of 174 information related to Charter inquiries and legal opinions when available. 4 Charter Commission July 13, 2006 Page 5 APPROVED 175 176 Commissioner Trehus added the Commission should also get a summary of verbal opinions. 177 178 MOTION carried. 179 180 The Commission asked Commissioner Dahl to write a letter to the City requesting that 181 information. 182 183 Accessible Projects Process Update (Refer to Lines 450-451 in April 13, 2006 Minutes) 184 Neighborhood Concerns - Commissioner Trehus advised everyone received a memo outlining 185 an option to get the neighborhood behind a road reconstruction project. He noted it is a rough 186 draft and believes the process would work. It basically adds an option for neighborhood input. 187 He suggested having a joint meeting with the Council to discuss this or send them a 188 recommendation. 189 190 Chair Warren stated she does not fully understand the current process for road reconstruction so 191 she does not know if this is the optimal solution. She suggested getting the City Boards or teams 192 of expertise involved in the process. 193 194 Commissioner Carlson stated he is not supportive of the proposal. He gave his reason why and .-.495 stated the proposal would make it harder to build roads within the City. 196 197 Commissioner Trehus stated this is just the first step to get neighborhoods together before City 198 dollars are spent on a project. This is a very rough draft and it would need revisions. 199 200 Chair Warren stated she would like the optimal process within the City for this issue. She stated 201 experts are needed to create that process. 202 203 Commissioner Handrick suggested an informational meeting with staff to better understand the 204 current process. 205 206 Commissioner Carlson asked if the previous memo was sent to the Council and if a response was 207 received. 208 209 Commissioner Trehus stated he did not send a memo with the options that were outlined at the 210 last meeting. 211 212 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Dahl, to invite the City 213 Engineer and Community Development Director to make a presentation on the current road 214 reconstruction process. 215 216 Commissioner Handrick made a friendly amendment to include Commissioner Trehus draft a ---4°17 letter outlining that request and submit it to the Chair and Secretary of the Commission for 218 review. 5 Charter Commission July 13, 2006 Page 6 APPROVED 219 220 MOTION carried. 221 222 The Commission requested Commissioner Trehus review the April 8, 2004 minutes prior to 223 drafting that letter. 224 225 Commissioner Storberg requested that meeting be first on the agenda at the October meeting. 226 227 Commissioner Dahl requested packets of information be distributed at the meeting. 228 229 NEW BUSINESS 230 231 Discussion of Outside Services — Commissioner Dahl advised the Commission might want to 232 obtain second opinions on various issues. She stated she does have a list of other attorneys the 233 Commission could contact for information. 234 235 Discussion of Charter Budget — Commissioner Trehus stated the City of Ramsey has similar 236 Charter provisions. Their City Attorney attends all Charter meetings. He stated he believes the 237 Commission could request an attorney be present at all meetings as well as the $1,500 Charter 238 budget. �'••239 240 Chair Warren stated this item would be placed on the October meeting agenda. 241 242 Discuss By -Law Revision to Restructure Meeting — Chair Warren removed this item from the 243 agenda. 244 245 Surface Water Management — Commissioner Dahl referred to the City web page regarding this 246 issue. 247 248 Set Agenda for October 12, 2006 Meeting — Chair Warren set the following agenda for the 249 October 12, 2006 Charter Commission Meeting: 250 251 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 252 2. Approval of Agenda 253 3. Open Microphone 254 4. Meeting with City Staff regarding Road Reconstruction Process 255 5. Approval of Minutes 256 A. July 13, 2006 257 6. Old Business 258 A. Five -Year Plan 259 260 x'61 7. New Business 262 A. Discussion of Outside Services 6 Charter Commission July 13, 2006 Page 7 APPROVED 263 B. Discussion of Charter Budget 264 C. Discussion of Three Charter Commission Meetings per Year 265 D. Set Agenda for January 2007 Meeting 266 8. Adjourn 267 268 ADJOURN 269 270 MOTION by Commissioner Vacha seconded by Commissioner Aldentaler, to adjourn the 271 meeting at 9:30 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 272 273 274 Respectfully Submitted, 275 276 Kim Points 277 TimeSaver Off -Site Secretarial, Inc. 278 AGENDA tgittol `- LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION THURSDAY July 13, 2006 Lino Lakes City Hall Community Room 6:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Open Microphone 4. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of April 13, 2006 5. Old Business A. Ordinance Amendment regarding Council Members on the Charter B. Process: Information Only i) Refer to line 286 & 287 in April 13, 2006 minutes - copy of May 12th letter from Attorney, Mr. Hawkins; - letter from Chair Warren C. Recommendation(s) of Sub Committee: i) Citizen Charter Amendment 4. Road Reconstruction and Council Response 5. Five -Year Plan Response 6. Quality of Life Survey 7. Kennedy and Graven Charter Reviews: YMCA and Legacy — Trehus i) Refer to Line 76 in minutes in April 13, 2006 8. Accessible projects process update: Line 450-451 minutes April 13, 2006 a) Neighborhood concerns 9. New Business A. Discussion of Outside Services B. Discussion of Charter Budget C. Discuss By -Law Revision to Restructure Meeting D. Set Agenda for October 12, 2006 Meeting Adjourn 6:30 PM 6:31 PM 6:32 PM 6:33 PM Commission 6:34 PM 6:35 PM 7:05 PM 7:10 PM 7:15 PM 7:20 PM 7:45 PM 8:00 PM 8:15 PM 8:35 PM 8:50 PM 9:00 PM Chair: Paulette Warren Vice Chair: Cori Duffy Secretary: Caroline Dahl 651-484-4678 - 1 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 \ 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS EXCUSED MEMBERS UNEXCUSED STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT DRAFT CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMNIISSION : Apri113, 2006 . 6:35 P.M. . 9:05 P.M. : Dahl, Aldentaler, Trehus (arrived at 7:03 p.m.), Handrick, Bening, Duffy, Bor, Richard Williams, Rosemary Williams, Storberg, Warren, Montain, Zastrow, and Carlson : Vacha : None : City Clerk, Julianne Bartell (part) CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Warren called the regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission to order at 6:35 p.m. on April 13, 2006. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Carlson stated New Business and Old Business categories have been switched but the By -Laws show the reversed order. He stated that in order to change the order of the meeting, the By -Laws would have to be changed. The Charter Commission also follows Roberts Rules of Order as defined in the Charter. Chair Warren explained that the officers had discussed that in the last year or so, the meetings have tended to go a bit long. The New Business items, which are the most important, are not discussed until the end and if the meeting is running late, there is no time to complete them. Because of that, the Old Business and New Business items were switched in order on this agenda. However, Commissioner Carlson is correct that the reversed order is in the By -Laws. Chair Warren encouraged Commissioners to keep their discussion tonight on topic so the agenda can be completed in an orderly fashion. MOTION by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Storberg, to continue with the agenda as typed. Motion carried unanimously. Agenda approved as revised to remove New Business Item 5C, Discussion of Term Limits of Commissioners in By -Laws, add New Business Item 5F, Quality of Life Survey. OPEN MIKE No one was present for open mike. -2- Charter Commission April 13, 2006 Page 2 DRAFT 46 L, 47 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 48 49 January 12, 2006 50 51 Commissioner Storberg referenced Page 5, Line 212, where she had asked to have her questions 52 about process answered. She asked if the Commission received any information on those 53 questions. Commissioner Storberg noted the actual questions she asked are not included in the 54 minutes so she would offer to listen to the meeting tape to write down the questions. 55 56 City Clerk Bartell stated she will verify that she has access to that meeting tape. 57 58 Chair Warren thanked Commissioner Storberg for being willing to listen to the tape and asked 59 her to type up the questions, and provide that document to her, Commissioner Dahl, 60 Commissioner Duffy, and staff so copies can be made for the Commission. 61 62 MOTION by Commissioner Montain, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to approve the 63 January 12, 2006, Charter Commission meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously. 64 65 NEW BUSINESS 66 67 Kennedy and Graven Charter Reviews: YMCA and Legacy 68 69 Commissioner Duffy stated this item deals with invoicing that was charged to the Charter 70 Commission for a review conducted by Kennedy and Graven. 71 72 MOTION by Commissioner Montain, seconded by Commissioner Bening, to request officers to 73 look into this matter and place it on the next agenda if it is still relevant. Motion carried 74 unanimously. 75 76 Chair Warren suggested Commissioner Trehus be asked to research this issue and provide his 77 findings at the next meeting. 78 79 Commissioner Montain asked the Chair to review the Charter Commission budget to assure it 80 will be adequate. 81 82 Citizen Petition regarding Council Members on the Charter Commission 83 84 Chair Warren noted a petition was made to the Council and while not a legitimate petition, the 85 Council has the ability to take it on as an advisory petition. A proposed amendment is now 86 before the Commission that will prevent a Charter member from also being on the Council and 87 vice versa. 88 89 City Clerk Bartell presented and reviewed an updated timeline. 2 -3- Charter Commission April 13, 2006 Page 3 DRAFT 90 L. 91 Commissioner Handrick asked why a petition was presented. Chair Warren explained that 92 Commissioner Bening was involved with drafting the petition and can better speak to that 93 question. She stated it is clear there is a desire to avoid a potential conflict of interest. Chair 94 Warren advised that she had asked the City Clerk if other commissions had adopted similar 95 motions and, in fact, there are none. City Clerk Bartell noted the liaison system existed but not 96 as a voting member. 97 98 Commissioner Montain explained that there have been committees, like the 2020 Plan, where 99 unpaid volunteers and the Mayor and Councilmembers have participated. However, they cannot 100 be on two groups where they received a stipend. 101 102 Commissioner Bening explained that a year ago he had asked for this to be discussed but the 103 Commission decided to not discuss it at any time in the future. However, he felt it was important 104 enough that it should go to the voters and a new State Statute allowed it in last August. He stated 105 he felt it was beneficial to have residents decide that issue and that is what started the petition to 106 get names. He stated instead of trying to follow the petition process laid out in the Charter and 107 State Statutes which bypasses the Council and Charter Commission, he wanted to include them 108 so the petition was presented to the Council. He stated there are 500 some signatures on the 109 petition. 110 111 Commissioner Montain asked why he didn't initiate a referendum instead. Commissioner 112 Bening answered that it was his choice to not do it that way. .... 113 114 Discussion occurred regarding a potential concern that the Charter Commission may become 115 "stacked" by Councilmembers. 116 117 Chair Warren stated the Council decided to go ahead with this and is selecting this time because 118 the situation does not currently exist and would not effect any individual. 119 120 Commissioner Carlson stated the petition says "to stop a conflict of interest." He stated he 121 knows Councilmember Carlson had asked the City Attorney at the March 27 meeting if there was 122 a conflict to serve on both simultaneously and his response was "an unqualified no." He stated 123 that he wants people to consider a change without going to the citizens because this does not rise 124 to the level of going to a ballot. That should be reserved for very important issues that effect the 125 power of the people. He suggested the amendment be approved but modified and sent back to 126 the Council. 127 128 Commissioner Trehus arrived at 7:03 p.m. 129 130 Chair Warren stated the options laid out are to either accept this as it is written and proposed, 131 without change, for the fall vote; delay it for 60 days to study the matter further with notification 132 to the Council; or change it and send it back to the Council where it will either be approved or 133 not. She noted the revised timeline provided to the Commission for those options. 3 - 4 - Charter Commission April 13, 2006 Page 4 DRAFT 134 135 Commissioner Bor stated that at the time Commissioner Bening presented this to the Charter 136 Commission, she did not have a lot of background about the motivation. At that time, there was 137 a Councilmember serving a dual role. She stated the verbiage could be clarified and she would 138 ask the Commission to study what the League of Cities says about Code of Conduct. 139 140 Chair Warren recapped that both Commissioner Carlson and Commissioner Bor think this 141 amendment should be reevaluated so it is in alignment with the Code of Conduct. 142 143 Commissioner Bening suggested an additional amendment to add a few words to the amendment. 144 145 Chair Warren drew the Commission's attention to the draft resolution and read the amendment. 146 She noted the underlined words show the proposed amendment to this ordinance. 147 148 City Clerk Bartell stated it was mentioned that a different process is allowed under State Statutes 149 under a vote of the Council. She referenced the October 7, 2005 letter from the City Attorney, 150 third paragraph, advising this is an advisory petition under Subdivision 5 of the State Statutes. 151 That language lays out the process, which is not a vote of the Council but to go to a ballot. 152 153 Commissioner Trehus stated the Commission can propose an amendment to the Charter, the 154 Council can approve it, and it would not require a vote of the residents. However, in this case the 155 Charter Commission does not have this option. 156 `. 157 Commissioner Handrick stated any amendment to the ordinance by the Charter Commission has 158 to go to a vote of the people. Commissioner Trehus stated this is an advisory petition so it is 159 actually determined by a motion of the Council. City Clerk Bartell advised that it falls under 160 Subdivision 5 and is an amendment of the ordinance by the Council. 161 162 Commissioner Storberg suggested a vote be taken on whether it is important enough to put on the 163 ballot. Chair Warren noted that because of the City Attorney's legal opinion, the feeling of the 164 Commission on its importance of being on the ballot may not result in it being on the ballot. 165 Commissioner Storberg stated if the Charter Commission and Council both agree, it does not 166 have to go to the ballot. 167 168 Commissioner Montain pointed out that 528 people signed an advisory petition, the Council 169 recognized it, and passed it on to the Charter Commission. He noted that 528 people expect this 170 to be on a ballot and they and the Council think it rises to the level of importance to include on 171 the ballot. 172 173 Chair Warren stated there are two issues on the table; process and acceptance. She asked if the 174 Commission agrees with this amendment. She stated if the Commission agrees with the 175 amendment then the process can be determined. If not, the process issues do not need to be 176 clarified. 177 4 -5- Charter Commission April 13, 2006 Page 5 DRAFT 178 Commissioner Dahl referenced the new timeline that indicates the Charter Commission has two 179 options; 60 days (June 9) from date of Council referral or up to a 90 day extension, (September 180 7) is allowed with a Charter resolution; the Charter Commission may approve, reject or submit a 181 substitute amendment, notifying the City Council of their action." She noted that if the 182 Commission approves a 60 -day extension, it would have to schedule another meeting. But, if 183 there is a 90 -day extension, then the July meeting would be within that time frame. City Clerk 184 Bartell stated the deadline for getting it on the ballot is September 1. 185 186 Commissioner Bening noted that State Statute, Section 410.12, Amendments, lays out the 187 process and a delay for 90 days would kill this amendment. 188 189 Commissioner Trehus stated it can be changed or substituted and that's more than "tweaking" the 190 five amendment words. 191 192 MOTION by Commissioner Bening, seconded by Commissioner Montain, to approve the 193 proposed amendment as the City Ordinance provides. 194 195 Commissioner Carlson stated he opposes this motion because he wants to add words to the 196 amendment and discuss the process after the vote. 197 198 It was noted the motion on the floor does not include process. 199 200 Commissioner Trehus stated he does not support the amendment because it makes it look like L. 201 this is a "heinous thing" but there are a lot of positives in having a Councilmember on the 202 Charter Commission. However, he might feel differently if four or five Councilmembers were 203 on the Charter Commission. 204 205 Commissioner Montain stated that besides Councilmember Dahl there have been other Mayors 206 and Councilmembers on the Charter Commission in the previous 22 years and that has not 207 caused a problem. He does not like to limit the freedom of association or imply that the City 208 Council will be so powerful that they will sway the other members. 209 210 Commissioner Bening stated his support to approve the amendment. 211 212 Commissioner Carlson stated he is supportive of the amendment but not the process. Since the 213 process is not included in motion, he will not support it. 214 215 Commissioner Zastrow stated that Councilmember Dahl brought a lot of information to the 216 Charter Commission, which was a good thing. With this amendment if you want to be a Mayor 217 or Councilmember, you cannot do that while serving on the Charter Commission since both are 218 paid. He stated he is against the amendment the way it is worded. 219 220 Commissioner Aldentaler stated he is opposed to the amendment. 221 5 -6- Charter Commission April 13, 2006 Page 6 DRAFT 222 Commissioner Storberg stated she thinks the amendment is fine and it is a good time to consider L, 223 it since there is not a conflict now. She stated there is a potential to have 2-5 Councilmembers 224 on the Charter Commission; however, she does not think this should go to the referendum. 225 Commissioner Storberg stated she supports the ordinance process because there are other big 226 issues that should be handled and residents will not understand this amendment. 227 228 Commissioner Duffy stated she is opposed to the amendment the way it is written because it does 229 not allow for a liaison function. She would like to consider a liaison function and limiting to one 230 Councilmember being on the Charter Commission so there is not a future problem of "stacking" 231 the Charter Commission with Councilmember who have their own agenda. Commissioner Duffy 232 stated she would like to follow the process the way the Statute is written. 233 234 Commissioner Handrick stated she opposes the amendment as it stands but is not necessarily 235 opposed to having a Councilmember on the Commission because she found it to be beneficial. 236 She stated she would like to know the history of this request and why the Statute was changed by 237 the Legislature. 238 239 Commissioner Richard Williams stated he is opposed to the amendment as it is worded because 240 it indicates there has been a conflict. He felt the amendment should state, "to prevent a conflict." 241 242 Commissioner Rosemary Williams stated she is also opposed and would like it postponed so 243 there can be more discussion at the next meeting. 244 L- 245 Commissioner Bor stated that nothing should be mean spirited and this consideration should be 246 done in the context that it benefits the City. She stated she is not opposed to the amendment but 247 would like the wording changed a bit. Commissioner Bor stated she wants to clearly understand 248 the legal aspect in terms of why it is forced to go on the ballot and stated she her support to use 249 the referendum process for more important issues like the streets. 250 251 Chair Warren stated she is not opposed to this amendment but is opposed to not having a 252 connection with the Council. Her issue is similar to Commissioner Duffy's thinking to have the 253 amendment changed to the effect that if there is not a Councilmember on the Charter 254 Commission as a voting member, a liaison member will be required to sit on the Charter 255 Commission. She commented on the importance of the Commission developing a good working 256 relationship with the Council. 257 258 Commissioner Dahl stated she comes from the "other side of the table" so she asked to be 259 allowed to make comment last. She stated she believes in freedom of speech and likes 260 Commissioner Montain's comment about the importance of freedom of association. 261 Commissioner Dahl stated she does not believe she was ever a "conflict of interest" to the 262 Charter Commission but felt she was an extension of the Council and could help since she knows 263 who to go to. She does not believe she did anything wrong and respects the people who signed 264 the petition, which is their right to do. Commissioner Carlson stated she would prefer to add 265 language to the amendment, to hold a good discussion, and would support tabling if that is what 6 -7- Charter Commission April 13, 2006 Page 7 DRAFT 266 is needed. She noted there are other issues coming before the Commission and this item needs to 267 be addressed in an unbiased manner. 268 269 Motion failed with Commissioner Bening voting yes. 270 271 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus to notify the City Council of a need for an extension of an 272 additional 45-60 days, which will still allow time for the amendment to be placed on the ballot. 273 274 Commissioner Richard Williams asked if it cost a lot to place it on the ballot. Commissioner 275 Trehus stated there is already an election this year so it would not cost a lot. 276 277 Commissioner Trehus speculated on how residents will view this Charter amendment and stated 278 he thinks it is an embarrassment and should not be on the ballot. He stated he thinks this can be 279 considered by the Charter Commission and Council. 280 281 Commissioner Handrick stated her agreement that it would not reflect positively on either. 282 283 Commissioner Bor stated clarity from the lawyer is needed so the Charter Commission knows 284 what is possible. She stated she supports the motion for an extension. 285 286 Discussion ensued regarding the need for a legal opinion on whether it can be considered without 287 sending it to the voters and whether a Councilmember can be a non -paid non-voting liaison. 288 L.- 289 Commissioner Duffy seconded the motion. 290 291 Commissioner Montain noted a resident survey had been conducted to ask the people but now 292 discussion is occurring that this amendment should not be on the ballot. He speculated that the 293 500 plus residents who signed the petition and the Council expect it to be on the ballot. He asked 294 if a subcommittee should be formed to get additional information and then present a 295 recommendation and options at the July meeting. 296 297 Commissioner Trehus stated it is not his intention to show a lack of respect for the voting public 298 but believed the 500 signatures were obtained under the guise there was a conflict of interest. 299 300 Commissioner Montain called the question. 301 302 The motion on the floor was read. 303 304 Commissioner Trehus stated a date for the extension is needed. He stated it would be beneficial 305 to have some dialog with the Council before making a recommendation and suggested a joint 306 meeting be scheduled for July. 307 308 Motion carried with Commissioners Bening and Montain voting no. 309 7 -8- Charter Commission April 13, 2006 Page 8 DRAFT 310 City Clerk Bartell recapped that the extension has been requested with direction to seek an 311 opinion from the City Attorney if it can be a dual track process under Subdivision 7, which 312 provides the other process for the Charter Commission to send forth its own ordinance 313 amendment to the Council for approval. The Commission will look at that during the next 314 meeting. 315 316 Chair Warren asked who wanted to sit on a subcommittee to prepare language for an amendment 317 revision. Commissioners Handrick, Dahl, and Trehus volunteered to serve on a subcommittee. 318 319 Chair Warren stated she will contact the City Attorney regarding his opinion. It was agreed that 320 this information will be provided ahead of time so all Commissioners can read the suggestions 321 and be ready to discuss it at the next meeting. 322 323 Discussion of the Definition of the Commission's Role 324 325 Commissioner Bening stated he would like something in the By-laws so the topics before the 326 Commission are more focused. Commissioner Zastrow agreed that sometimes the Commission 327 is sidetracked because they do not know the process or what they are supposed to be doing. 328 329 Chair Warren stated she hears the request of Commissioner Bening to stay on track with 330 Commission business and not get distracted. 331 332 Assessable Projects / Neighborhood — Related Concerns 333 334 Commissioner Trehus stated he wants to find a way for Lino Lakes, when there are complex 335 projects, to put them on the ballot and be sure it is the right project for the neighborhood. Then 336 there would not be a split opinion on the project. He stated residents should be asked to vote on 337 projects that they support but he is not sure if it will require a Charter amendment or could be a 338 Council initiated policy. He stated if the Council is not willing and the Charter Commission 339 feels strongly about it, they could do a Charter amendment. 340 341 The Commission reviewed and discussed the April 5, 2006 memorandum submitted by 342 Commissioner Trehus that detailed seven options (A through G) in how to handle neighborhood 343 proj ects. 344 345 Commissioner Montain stated he is a member of the Park Board and is concerned with option E, 346 nonassessable project such as bike paths. He noted there may be a case where the Council 347 approves a path to link through a neighborhood but the neighborhood may not like it even though 348 it is appropriate. Commissioner Montain explained his concern is not the Chapter 8 items, but 349 the nonassessable issues that can be a tough decision of the Council. He does not support 350 including option E. 351 352 Commissioner Bor noted if the trail opportunity is in the Master Plan to link, then they would 353 offer it as an option with the project when it can be done at a lower cost. 8 -9- Charter Commission April 13, 2006 Page 9 DRAFT 354 L., 355 Commissioner Dahl asked about option B, develop and require the use of standard petition form 356 to eliminate confusion. She explained that sometimes people will sign a petition for a feasibility 357 study but then, once more details are learned about the project and cost, signed another petition 358 to not have the referendum the ballot. 359 360 Commissioner Zastrow stated this is a Council issue and should not be discussed by the Charter 361 Commission. 362 363 Commissioner Storberg stated under the Charter only new development roads need to go to a 364 referendum and roads that need to be fixed and are supported would not have to go to the 365 referendum. Commissioner Montain stated that is not correct because new roads are paid by the 366 developer. 367 368 Commissioner Richard Williams stated someone put a lot of work into this memorandum and he 369 thinks there are some good points. 370 371 Chair Warren noted the City conducted a quality of life survey and three Commissioners attended 372 the presentation on Monday night. She referenced the details of the survey as shown on page 12 373 from Decision Resources. It indicates that they randomly selected 400 citizens to survey. Chair 374 Warren asked that question to be included in the record: 375 376 "The Lino Lakes City Charter limits the street reconstruction practices of the City. 377 Under the charter, the city may only use tax dollars for street reconstruction if one 378 of two conditions are met: first, a citizen petitions the City for a specific road 379 improvement AND a majority of the affected property owners support the petition 380 AND a referendum on the improvement is approved in a citywide election; or 381 second, the City Council initiates the project AND the project is approved by a 382 majority of the affected property owners AND a referendum is approved in a 383 citywide election. The City is, however, allowed to perform limited maintenance 384 of streets, such as filling pot holes and seal coating." 385 386 Chair Warren noted that the respondents indicated 66% were aware, 34% was not aware, and 1% 387 did not know or refused to answer. The next question asked was: 388 389 "The initial step in road construction is the development of a comprehensive plan 390 that would prioritize roads for improvement. In order to implement this plan, a 391 funding source would have to be established." 392 393 Chair Warren noted the respondents indicated that the majority favored a Charter change to allow 394 the City to establish a fund. She stated the Council has already moved into the arena to establish 395 a fund and the majority of the citizens surveyed have indicated they support a change to the 396 Charter. Chair Warren stated it has been discussed that perhaps a change to the Charter would 397 aid road construction so projects can move forward. The Council has taken a step ahead of this 9 -10- Charter Commission April 13, 2006 Page 10 DRAFT 398 issue by suggesting the process would be a fund that would call things into action but does not 399 address avoiding the process. 400 401 Commissioner Trehus stated this is the same question as on the 1996 citizen survey but it does 402 not say anything about whether they would still vote on the road, it only addresses establishing a 403 fund. 404 405 Commissioner Bening stated option F gets into the realm of too much detail in the Charter. He 406 stated standards are needed in the City for when a street is going to be reconstructed. One of 407 those standards is curb and gutter. The project has to be approved by a majority of the residents 408 affected by the project and then the question is whether the City voters want to fund it. As long 409 as more than 50% of the people affected understand the ramifications, it should go forward but it 410 must meet standards. 411 412 Commissioner Carlson stated he has concern with options E and F but likes the idea of a process. 413 With regard to option E, he noted that expansion of the trail system received a clear majority of 414 support from the residents surveyed but they do not want to spend much. He commented that 415 trails are part of a system and it is important to the community to have those connections. 416 417 Commissioner Montain stated his agreement with options A, B, C, D, and G and suggested 418 standard clarification language be offered to the Council regarding procedure. 419 420 MOTION by Commissioner Montain, seconded by Commissioner Bening, to strongly urge the `-- 421 Council to look at options A, B, C, D, and G to help clarify the language used, which will help 422 projects to get approved. 423 424 Commissioner Bor thanked Commissioner Trehus for his effort and stated it is a Council and 425 staff issue to address process, as mentioned by Commissioner Zastrow. She stated if you look at 426 the survey of the 400, there is room for improvement, as the Commission knows. However, 427 residents do not want to pay for it. She stated that new developments will take advantage of that 428 but it is a separate process from the Charter. Commissioner Bor stated she is addressing option E 429 related to nonassessable projects, which she believes should be a separate process. She 430 suggested that Commissioner Trehus, as a citizen, should present it to the Council to be worked 431 out. 432 433 Commissioner Trehus stated if you want to see West Shadow or a similar project get 434 neighborhood approval, then option F is needed and it would be a mistake to not include it. He 435 suggested that with a complex project, like West Shadow, the City has to sit down and talk to the 436 residents, or they will not support the project. He stated the Charter is a good thing but he thinks 437 it could be better. He suggested forwarding this memorandum and the Commission's comments 438 to the Council and to request comments from the Council. Commissioner Trehus stated he will 439 vote against the motion because it excludes options E and F. 440 10 -11- Charter Commission April 13, 2006 Page 11 DRAFT 441 Commissioner Montain stated he thinks options E and F are too specific and the engineer and 442 staff should see what is going on with the project support. 443 444 Commissioner Storberg stated she has been hearing from residents that property taxes up 25% in 445 two years and they are blaming it on schools and Charter, which they believe are restricting 446 development. 447 448 Motion carried with Commissioners Trehus and Duffy voting no and Commissioner Dahl absent. 449 450 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Storberg, to submit options E 451 and F to the Council. 452 453 Commissioner Montain called the question. 454 455 Motion failed with Commissioners Trehus and Storberg voting yes and Commissioner Rosemary 456 Williams absent. 457 458 Quality of Life Survey 459 460 Chair Warren encouraged residents to review the Quality of Life Survey to see if any of the 461 issues would impact the Charter. This item will be included on the next meeting agenda. 462 463 OLD BUSINESS �-- 464 465 Road Reconstruction 466 467 Chair Warren stated this item was discussed under Item 5E. 468 469 Five -Year Plan 470 471 Commissioner Montain stated there is a lengthy nonanswer from the City regarding the Five - 472 Year Plan but it appears that nothing has been done on it and staff does not know when it will be 473 done. He emphasized that the Charter says there must be a Five -Year Plan and it has been on 474 their agenda for years. He stated if they do not want to do a Five -Year Plan, he would suggest it 475 be taken out of the Charter. 476 477 Commissioner Dahl stated her agreement about the need for a Five -Year Plan, which is to be 478 updated every year, and that an explanation is needed. 479 480 MOTION by Commissioner Montain, seconded by Commissioner Zastrow, to direct Chair 481 Warren to inform the City Council by letter that the Charter clearly states that the City have a 482 Five -Year Plan and the Commission is asking when will the Five -Year Plan finally be done and 483 voted on. 484 11 - 12 - Charter Commission April 13, 2006 Page 12 DRAFT 485 Discussion occurred regarding the date of the last Five -Year Plan. It was discussed that a Five - 486 Year Plan was approved from 1992 through 1996 when Mayor Landers was in office. 487 488 Commissioner Bor called the question. 489 490 Motion carried unanimously. 491 492 Eminent Domain 493 494 Commissioner Bening stated he raised this issue a while ago but after looking at the Statute and 495 proposed change in Section 1 he would recommend the Charter Commission take no action on 496 this issue. 497 498 Informational; no action needed so this item will be removed from Old Business. 499 500 Review of City Council Minutes 501 502 Commissioner Dahl suggested this item be removed from future agendas unless a Commissioner 503 has an issue with a set of minutes. If so, it can be added to that agenda. 504 505 MOTION by Commissioner Zastrow, seconded by Commissioner Duffy, to remove "Review of 506 City Council Minutes" from the Charter Commission agenda and if a Commissioner has an issue, 507 then it will be added to the agenda. 508 509 Commissioner Trehus stated it is good to have this on the agenda because then it will be 510 reviewed. 511 512 Motion carried with Commissioners Trehus and Aldentaler voting no. 513 514 Set Agenda for July 2006 Meeting 515 516 Chair Warren set the following agenda for the July 13, 2006 Charter Commission Meeting: 517 518 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 519 2. Approval of Agenda 520 3. Open Microphone 521 4. Approval of Minutes 522 A. April 13, 2006 523 5. Old Business 524 A. Road Reconstruction and Council Response 525 B. Five -Year Plan Response 526 C. Quality of Life Survey 527 D. Kennedy and Graven Charter Reviews: YMCA and Legacy - Trehus 12 -13- Charter Commission April 13, 2006 Page 13 DRAFT 528 E. Citizen Amendment to Ordinance Amendment regarding Council Members 529 on the Charter Commission 530 6. New Business 531 A. Discussion of Outside Services 532 B. Discussion of Charter Budget 533 C. Discuss By -Law Revision to Restructure Meeting 534 D. Set Agenda for , 2006 Meeting 535 536 7. Adjourn 537 538 Consensus was reached that the submittal deadline will be three weeks prior to the meeting date. 539 Written assignments will be submitted to Chair Warren who will then forward the information to 540 City Clerk Bartell for inclusion in the meeting packets. 541 542 ADJOURN 543 544 MOTION by Commissioner Montain, seconded by Commissioner Trehus, to adjoum the meeting 545 at 9:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 546 547 Respectfully submitted, 548 Carla Wirth 549 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. \ 550 13 - 14 - LAW OFFICES OF William G. Hawkins and Associates WILLIAM G. HAwIuNS Legal Assistants TAMMI J. UVEGES BARRY A. SuurvAN HOLLY G. PROVO May 12, 2006 Julianne Bartell Lino Lakes City Clerk Lino Lakes City Hall 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Re: Proposed Lino Lakes Charter Amendment Dear Ms. Bartell: 2140 FOURTH AVENUE Noirri4 ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 PHONE (763) 427-8877 FAX (763) 421-4213 E -MAR. Haw1cLawl@aol.com have reviewed your letter of May 5, 2006 regarding the proposed amendment to the Lino Lakes City Charter which would prohibit City Council members from also being members of the Charter Commission. The City Council is requesting that this office answer two questions. First, assuming the Charter Commission makes a timely recommendation to the City Council on the proposed amendment, must the vote of the City Council to place the proposal on the ballot be unanimous? No, a simple majority is all that is required. In this case, the proposal was initiated by the City Council after receiving a request from residents. The process is for the Council to submit the proposal to the Charter Commission and allow the Commission and appropriate period of time to approve or reject the proposed amendment or suggest a substitute amendment. Upon notification of the Charter Commission's action, the Council may submit the proposal to the voters. A unanimous vote in this circumstance is not required. Minn. Stat. § 410.12, Subd. 5 (2004). A unanimous City Council vote is only required in those instances where the proposal to amend the Charter was initiated by the Charter Commission and the Council determines to adopt that proposal and bypass the voters. Second, if the Charter Commission fails to take timely action on the proposed amendment, can the City Council nonetheless vote to place the proposed amendment on the ballot. Yes. The statute requires the Charter Commission to review the - 1 5 - Ms. Julianne Bartell May 12, 2006 Page 2 proposed amendment and must do so within 60 days but can have an additional 90 days upon adopting a resolution that additional time for review is needed. Upon review, the Charter Commission shall approve or reject the proposed amendment or suggest a substitute amendment. The failure of the Charter Commission to take action should be treated as a rejection by the Charter Commission as it did not affirmatively approve the proposal or affirmatively suggest a substitute proposal. Should the Charter Commission fail to take action after expiration of the appropriate time period, the Council may .subrn't the matter to the voters. This vote by the Council need not be unanimous but a simple majority would suffice. Additionally, should the Charter Commission affirmatively take action to reject the proposal, the Council could nonetheless submit the matter to the voters by a simple majority vote. There is another procedure the City could follow to approve the Charter amendment without submitting it to the voters. This would be an amendment to the Charter under Section 410.12, Subd. 7 (2004). (The current process is utilizing Section 410.12, Subd. 5). Under Subd. 7, the Charter Commission could affirmatively recommend to the City Council to amend the Charter by ordinance. That ordinance could be adopted by the City Council by a unanimous vote after a public hearing with two weeks published notice. The ordinance would not become effective until 90 days after passage and publication. The time period is allow the opportunity for a petition requesting a referendum on the proposal to be circulated and filed. If a sufficient petition is timely filed, the ordinance does not become effective until approved by the voters. If the Charter Commission desires to follow this procedure, it should pass two resolutions. The first resolution would be in response to the referral from the City Council and would approve the proposed Charter amendment pursuant to Section 410.12, Subd. 5. The second resolution would be an affirmative recommendation to amend the Charter pursuant to Section 410.12, Subd. 7. These resolutions may seem redundant but they are not as the statute requires the City Council to proceed in different manners depending upon how the proposal is submitted to them. Should the Charter Commission adopt both resolutions and submit them to the City Council, then the City Council would have the option of either approving the first resolution by a Tess than unanimous vote and require a referendum or adopt the second resolution by unanimous vote and not submit the issue to the voters. - 16 - Ms. Julianne Bartell May 12, 2006 Page 3 I trust this answers the questions which have been raised. If you wish to discuss the matter further, please feel free to call. Please circulate this letter to the Mayor and Members of the City Council. Sincerely, f Burry A. u iv n BAS/tju cc: Gordon Heitke - 17 - Memorandum From: Paulette Warren, Chair, Lino Lakes Charter Commission To: City of Lino Lakes Charter Commissioners Date: June 23, 2006 Ref: Proposed Charter Amendment, Process Update In our July 13 meeting we will be determining whether we wish to accept, reject or revise the charter amendment brought to us at the last meeting with regard to whether sitting Council members may also participate as Charter Commission members. Your subcommittee of Mike Trehus, Cori Duffy and Caroline Dahl has been studying this issue and will make their recommendation at the meeting. In order to understand the "next steps" to be taken, it's also helpful to understand the process we are undertaking. I have been in communication with the City attorney, as requested by our Commission, in order to more readily understand the options open to us. Please refer to and read the letter of May 12 from Barry Sullivan. Subsequent to receiving this letter, I have summarized our options below. Mr. Sullivan has reviewed this summary and indicated that it is accurate. Therefore, I present it to you in addition to his letter. Please be certain to review both before our meeting. Regarding the proposed amendment which was drafted in response to the citizen petition obtained by Robert Benning: 1. We have the obligation to either accept the amendment as written, reject it, or make a recommendation for revision. 2. If we fail to take timely action, the City Council can vote to place the proposed amendment on the ballot as is. Failure on our part to take action of any kind will be treated as a rejection of the proposed amendment. The vote by the Council to place the proposed amendment on the ballot need not be unanimous to pass. A simple majority is all that is necessary. 3. The Council, on our recommendation, could instead choose to approve the amendment as is without going to ballot. To do this, the Charter Commission would first submit our approval of the proposed amendment to the council and also include a recommendation to the Council to follow the process outlined in Section 410.12, Subd 7, thereby amending the Charter by ordinance. If the Council agreed, a public hearing would be held (two weeks notice required). After the hearing, the Council could adopt the amendment, but it would require a unanimous vote by Council. If the vote is unanimous, the ordinance becomes effective 90 days after passage and publication. 4. If we choose this route we have to pass two resolutions: a. Resolution to approve the charter amendment as submitted to us; b. Resolution recommending that the Council approve the amendment pursuant to Section 410.12, Subd 7. 5. The same process of amendment by ordinance could be utilized if we propose a revision to the amendment. In that case, the Council would have to agree with our proposed revision first, and agree to the recommendation to pass the amendment by ordinance. Whether we submit our approval as is or submit a revision, the City Council has two options, depending on the outcome of their vote: a. If the Council vote on the resolution to approve the amendment is less than unanimous it will then require use of the referendum process (go to ballot) b. If the vote is unanimous on both the wording of the amendment and the recommendation to approve it pursuant to Section 410.12, Sub7, the issue would not be submitted to the voters, but would follow procedure in number 3 above. The subcommittee's recommendations will be presented and discussed at the meeting In order to meet our timeframe, please do everything possible to attend this session. We will make this item the first order of our "Old Business." Respectfully submitted, Paulette Warren -19- Memorandum Date: July 6, 2006 To: City Council From: Gordon Heitke Re: Caroline Dahl Request for Information Just prior to sending out the meeting packets, Caroline Dahl contacted staff to request information on the following topics. 1. Road Reconstruction and Council Response There is no new information to share at this time. As indicated in the April 7 memo included in your previous meeting packet, no projects are planned to be on the ballot this November. 2. Five -Year Plan Response As indicated in the July 7 memo, the Council is analyzing the long term financial impacts of some existing policies and practices. Once the Council determines what policy changes are to be made, if any, those changes will be used in the completion of the Five -Year Financial Plan. A City Council financial workshop, which included the involvement of the city's financial advisors and auditor, was held on June 13. The second session will be held the week of July 17. 3. Quality of Life Survey A copy of the public presentation of the survey results were distributed to commission members at its last meeting. There have been no direct activities related to the survey results as of this time. It is expected to be used extensively in future planning activities. 4. Code of Conduct The City Council of Lino Lakes has had some form of guidelines for conduct in place for many years. These guidelines were updated this past April. A copy is attached. Lino Lakes City Council CODE OF CONDUCT Purpose To establish a code of conduct and associated remedies that council members agree to abide by in carrying out their duties as elected officials. This code of conduct does not supersede any existing or future statutory or constitutional rights, but simply outlines appropriate council expectations, behavior and interactions with each other, city staff, citizens and all other groups encountered as a result of city business, so as to efficiently and effectively develop and carry out the mission, vision, goals and established policies of the city. Roles/Responsibilities Meetings — By Charter, the mayor presides over meetings of the city council. Speakers, including council members, do not speak until recognized by the mayor. Act in the Public Interest — Recognizing that service to our citizens must be our primary concern, council members shall work for the common good of the people of Lino Lakes and not for any private or personal interest. Council members will treat all persons, claims and transactions in a fair and equitable manner. Preparation — Council members are expected to be prepared for city council meetings and work sessions. Agenda Preparation — The city administrator directs preparation of draft meeting agendas. The final agenda is determined by the city council prior to the meeting. At the council meeting, agenda items may be added or deleted by council members per procedures established in the city code. Conduct of Members Staff Direction — The mayor and city council members direct city staff, contract employees and consultants only through the city administrator, as determined by majority vote. At work sessions, the mayor will state the concerns of the council or specific directions provided by /l2••• the council to the staff. The city administrator will request further clarification if he feels it is required so that there is a clear understanding of what the council's expectations are in terms of the actions to be taken by staff. Respect for Staff Time — If a council member is utilizing an inordinate amount of staff time, the city administrator is required to bring this to the attention of the city council for resolution. Interactions — Council members shall refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of other members of the city council, boards, commissions, committees, staff or the public. Respect for Process — Council member duties shall be performed in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by the city council. Use of Public Resources — Public resources not available to the general public (e.g., city staff time, equipment, supplies or facilities) shall not be used by council members for private, personal or political purposes. Advocacy — To the best of their ability, council members shall speak with one voice in representing the official policies and positions of the city council. When presenting their personal opinions or positions, members shall explicitly state that they do not represent the council or the city. Improper Influence — Council members shall refrain from using their position to improperly influence the deliberations or decisions of city staff, boards, commission or committees. Positive Work Environment — Council members shall support a positive, efficient and effective environment for residents, businesses and city employees. Steward of City Funds — When the end of a council member's service on the city council has been determined by means of not seeking re-election, resignation, or the results of an election, that council member shall not subject the city to unnecessary travel and/or tuition costs. Communication Sharing of Information — It is the responsibility of council members to publicly share information with all other council members that they have received from sources outside of �.� the public decision-making process, which pertains to a topic under consideration. Whenever possible, new information or data obtained by council members, pertinent to a topic being discussed, will be distributed through the city administrator to the city council members. Upon reviewing the "new information" the council may adopt a motion to postpone further consideration of the information until all members have had time to review and interpret this new information. Focused Discussions — Council members shall work to keep discussions and debates focused on the item under discussion without introducing extraneous or irrelevant information. Request for Information- All council members shall receive the same information at the same time when deemed ready for distribution by staff. If an elected official requests information in advance of others on the city council, the matter shall be resolved by a majority of the city council. Coordination with City Staff — City staff should be involved when council members meet with officials from other agencies and jurisdictions to ensure proper staff support as needed and to keep staff appropriately informed. Citizen Questions — Elected officials should refer questions and concerns from citizens to the city administrator or appropriate department director. City staff should report back to the city council on the resolution of the referral. Confidential Information — Council members shall respect and preserve the confidentiality of non-public, protected non-public, private, and confidential information provided to them concerning matters of the city. They shall neither disclose confidential information without proper legal authorization nor use such information to advance their personal, financial or private interests. Notice of Attendance — If any council member has knowledge or reason to believe that there will be a large or emotional attendance at an upcoming council meeting or work session, they have an obligation to inform the city administrator as soon as they become aware of the potential situation. Implementation Orientation — This Code of Conduct shall be included in the regular orientations for new city council members. Following each election, the new council shall, by resolution of its elected members, adopt a city council code of conduct. Compliance and Enforcement — Council members themselves have the primary responsibility to assure that the code of conduct is understood and followed and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of the Lino Lakes city government. Remedies It is the responsibility of the city council to police its members. When inappropriate behaviors are observed, any member of the council can intervene. If inappropriate behavior is observed, the city council will discuss the behavior at a council work session. By direction of the council, it will be determined whether: a. A letter is sent to the offending council member stating that they have been found operating outside the established code of conduct, requesting them to correct the behavior identified as inappropriate; or b. The council member is formally sanctioned by resolution at a council meeting. Resolution 06-58 adopting this Code of Conduct was adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council on April 10, 2006. John Bergeson, Mayor Memorandum To: Lino Lakes City Council From: Lino Lakes Charter Commission Date: July 19, 2006 Re: Proposed amendment to the City of Lino Lakes Charter, Chapter II, Section 2.04 CC: Lino Lakes Charter Commission Members Proposed Amendment to the City of Lino Lakes Charter, Chapter II, Section 2.04 as submitted by Robert Bening and Al Demotts on bequest of several residents: On page three of the Lino Lakes City Charter : In Chapter II Section 2.04 insert "be a member of the City Charter Commission,". The proposed amendment was presented to the Charter Commission for review at our April 13 meeting. At that time, a subcommittee was appointed to study the proposal and recommend an appropriate course of action; and to seek additional clarification from city attorneys, William G. Hawkins and Associates. Chair Warren, with assistance from City Clerk Julianne Bartell, obtained clarification of our options in a May 12, 2006 correspondence from Barry A. Sullivan and subsequent e-mail and voice mail conversations. This information was conveyed to Commissioners Dahl, Trehus and Duffy who formed the subcommittee, and communicated to all Charter Commission Members in the July meeting pack. The Charter Commission, at our July 13 meeting, accepted the recommendation presented by Council with an additional revision below: Proposed Revision to Amendment approved by the Charter Commission on July 13, 2006: In Chapter II Section 2.04 also insert "However, one member of the Council may serve as a non-voting liaison to the City Charter Commission": The Amendment would then read: Section 2.04 Incompatible Offices. No member of the Council shall be a member of the City Charter Commission, hold any paid municipal office or employment through the City other than that to which elected. However, one member of the Council may serve as a non-voting liaison to the City Charter Commission. Further, until one (1) year after the expiration of his/her term, no Mayor or Council Member shall be appointed or employed by the City in a compensated position which was created, or the compensation for which was increased, during his/her term as Mayor or Council Member. The Charter Commission wishes the Council to know that our intention in making this revision is to first address the concerns of citizens who proposed the amendment; and to further retain an option for Charter membership that will allow enhanced communication between the Council and Charter members, which we feel is essential. The Commission also recommends that the Council approve this amendment under Section 410.12, Subd. 7, by ordinance, rather than by referendum. We believe this is an appropriate path to meet the needs of our citizens, and our city attorney has indicated it is an acceptable procedure for this amendment. We urge the Council to move ahead at the next Council meeting to adopt both the resolution to approve the revised amendment above, and a resolution to approve such amendment by ordinance. Respectfully submitted, Paulette Warren Chair, Lino Lakes Charter Commission Memorandum Date: July 6, 2006 To: City Council From: Gordon Heitke Re: Caroline Dahl Request for Information Just prior to sending out the meeting packets, Caroline Dahl contacted staff to request information on the following topics. 1. Road Reconstruction and Council Response There is no new information to share at this time. As indicated in the April 7 memo included in your previous meeting packet, no projects are planned to be on the ballot this November. 2. Five -Year Plan Response As indicated in the July 7 memo, the Council is analyzing the long term financial impacts of some existing policies and practices. Once the Council determines what policy changes are to be made, if any, those changes will be used in the completion of the Five -Year Financial Plan. A City Council financial workshop, which included the involvement of the city's financial advisors and auditor, was held on June 13. The second session will be held the week of July 17. 3. Quality of Life Survey A copy of the public presentation of the survey results were distributed to commission members at its last meeting. There have been no direct activities related to the survey results as of this time. It is expected to be used extensively in future planning activities. 4. Code of Conduct The City Council of Lino Lakes has had some form of guidelines for conduct in place for many years. These guidelines were updated this past April. A copy is attached. Lino Lakes City ;Council CODE OF CONDUCT Purpose To establish a code of conduct and associated remedies that council members agree to abide by in carrying out their duties as elected officials. This code of conduct does not supersede any existing or future statutory or constitutional rights, but simply outlines appropriate council expectations, behavior and interactions with each other, city staff, citizens and all other groups encountered as a result of city business, so as to efficiently and effectively develop and carry out the mission, vision, goals and established policies of the city. Roles/Responsibilities Meetings — By Charter, the mayor presides over meetings of the city council. Speakers, including council members, do not speak until recognized by the mayor. Act in the Public Interest — Recognizing that service to our citizens must be our primary concern, council members shall work for the common good of the people of Lino Lakes and not for any private or personal interest. Council members will treat all persons, claims and transactions in a fair and equitable manner. Preparation — Council members are expected to be prepared for city council meetings and work sessions. Agenda Preparation — The city administrator directs preparation of draft meeting agendas. The final agenda is determined by the city council prior to the meeting. At the council meeting, agenda items may be added or deleted by council members per procedures established in the city code. Conduct of Members Staff Direction — The mayor and city council members direct city staff, contract employees and consultants only through the city administrator, as determined by majority vote. At work sessions, the mayor will state the concerns of the council or specific directions provided by the council to the staff. The city administrator will request further clarification if he feels it is required so that there is a clear understanding of what the council's expectations are in terms of the actions to be taken by staff. Respect for Staff Time — If a council member is utilizing an inordinate amount of staff time, the city administrator is required to bring this to the attention of the city council for resolution. Interactions — Council members shall refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of other members of the city council, boards, commissions, committees, staff or the public. Respect for Process — Council member duties shall be performed in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by the city council. Use of Public Resources — Public resources not available to the general public (e.g., city staff time, equipment, supplies or facilities) shall not be used by council members for private, personal or political purposes. Advocacy — To the best of their ability, council members shall speak with one voice in representing the official policies and positions of the city council. When presenting their personal opinions or positions, members shall explicitly state that they do not represent the council or the city. Improper Influence — Council members shall refrain from using their position to improperly influence the deliberations or decisions of city staff, boards, commission or committees. Positive Work Environment — Council members shall support a positive, efficient and effective environment for residents, businesses and city employees. Steward of City Funds — When the end of a council member's service on the city council has been determined by means of not seeking re-election, resignation, or the results of an election, that council member shall not subject the city to unnecessary travel and/or tuition costs. r Communication Sharing of Information — It is the responsibility of council members to publicly share information with all other council members that they have received from sources outside of /1 the public decision-making process, which pertains to a topic under consideration. Whenever possible, new information or data obtained by council members, pertinent to a topic being discussed, will be distributed through the city administrator to the city council members. Upon reviewing the "new information" the council may adopt a motion to postpone further consideration of the information until all members have had time to review and interpret this new information. /`•IN Focused Discussions — Council members shall work to keep discussions and debates focused on the item under discussion without introducing extraneous or irrelevant information. Request for Information- All council members shall receive the same information at the same time when deemed ready for distribution by staff. If an elected official requests information in advance of others on the city council, the matter shall be resolved by a majority of the city council. Coordination with City Staff — City staff should be involved when council members meet with officials from other agencies and jurisdictions to ensure proper staff support as needed and to keep staff appropriately informed. Citizen Questions — Elected officials should refer questions and concerns from citizens to the city administrator or appropriate department director. City staff should report back to the city council on the resolution of the referral. Confidential Information — Council members shall respect and preserve the confidentiality of non-public, protected non-public, private, and confidential information provided to them concerning matters of the city. They shall neither disclose confidential information without proper legal authorization nor use such information to advance their personal, financial or private interests. Notice of Attendance — If any council member has knowledge or reason to believe that there will be a large or emotional attendance at an upcoming council meeting or work session, they have an obligation to inform the city administrator as soon as they become aware of the potential situation. Implementation Orientation — This Code of Conduct shall be included in the regular orientations for new city council members. Following each election, the new council shall, by resolution of its elected members, adopt a city council code of conduct. Compliance and Enforcement — Council members themselves have the primary responsibility to assure that the code of conduct is understood and followed and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of the Lino Lakes city government. Remedies It is the responsibility of the city council to police its members. When inappropriate behaviors are observed, any member of the council can intervene. If inappropriate behavior is observed, the city council will discuss the behavior at a council work session. By direction of the council, it will be determined whether: a. A letter is sent to the offending council member stating that they have been found operating outside the established code of conduct, requesting them to correct the behavior identified as inappropriate; or b. The council member is formally sanctioned by resolution at a council meeting. Resolution 06-58 adopting this Code of Conduct was adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council on Apri110, 2006. John Bergeson, Mayor C1TY,�ti1 OF ['NUL KES May 5, 2006 Mr. William G. Hawkins Attorney at Law 2140 Fourth Av S Anoka, MN 55303 Re: Proposed Amendment to the Lino Lakes City Charter Dear Mr. Hawkins: I write in regard to the proposed charter amendment that would disallow city council members from also being members of the charter commission. To date, this amendment has been: a) Presented in petition form by two Lino Lakes residents (the petition was deemed to be advisory in nature and was referred to the City Council as such); b) Prepared in ordinance form and referred by the City Council, after two readings, to the Charter Commission; c) Presented to the Charter Commission at their meeting of April 13 with an advisory that the commission was allowed under State law 60 days (plus 90 days with a request) to review and respond on the proposed amendment. The Charter Commission responded with a communication to the City Council indicating they are requesting the allowed 90 -day extension and also requesting a legal opinion as to whether an amendment agreed upon by the council and the charter commission may be ratified without presentation on the ballot. The attached opinion was received from Barry Sullivan of your firm. After review of the opinion, the council has requested your opinion as to the following. Can the council place the charter amendment on the November 7, 2006 ballot if the amendment that is forwarded by the charter commission fails to receive unanimous approval by the council? Or, if the charter commission fails to act within the state mandated time frame (60 plus 90 days), can the council place the amendment on the ballot? Thank you for your response. Sincerely, Julie Bartell City Clerk 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014-1182 Phone: 651-982-2400 • Fax: 651-982-2499 Lino Lakes Charter Commission April 24, 2006 To: Lino Lakes City Council Members Gordon Heitke, City Administrator From: Charter Commission Paulette Warren, Chair Re: Five Year Plan The charter commission appreciates the challenges inherent in developing a meaningful Five Year Plan, as outlined in Mr. Heitke's April 7, 2006 update. The council, in accepting Mr. Heitke's recommendations to further study the complexities of the city's current and projected finances, has in effect delayed the adoption of the draft plan submitted in November, 2005 until an unknown future date to be determined. While we applaud your desire to have a plan that is thoughtful and realistic, we wish to reiterate that each element within the approved Five Year Plan must be revised and extended (that is, amended) each year, under Section 7.05 of the charter. In other words, the Five Year Plan is not carved in stone; it remains flexible to the continuing and opportunistic challenges of an ex -urban environment. The annual plan review provides ample opportunity for the City to amend the Five Year Plan as necessary, and to publish such amendments (Chapter VI., Section 7.05, subdivision 6). We also remind the council that it is responsible for the administration of the city and must, by charter provision, "hire/remove personnel who are required to operate the city efficiently." (Chapter VI, Section 6.02, Subdivision 2). The commission respectfully requests council review and completion of the November, 2005 draft plan including changes the council wishes to make at this time; execution of a public hearing on the plan; and adoption as required by Charter Chapter VII, Section 7.05, Subdivision 1. The commission views the immediate completion of this plan as a requirement of the Charter and as evidence that the council and staff are responsibly and efficiently operating the City of Lino Lakes. Respectfully submitted, Paulette Warren Charter Commission Chair cc: Charter commission members (copy in July meeting packet)