Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-13-2005 Charter Packet AGENDA LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION THURSDAY October 13, 2005 Community Room 6:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Open Mike 4. Joint Meeting with Council (City Council will decide on Monday, October 10,2005 if they will attend) A. Road Reconstruction B. Pavement Management Report C. Communication to the Residents D. Five-Year Plan E. Eminent Domain Information/Discussion 5. Brief Recess 6. Approval of Minutes A. April 14,2005 B. August 4, 2005 7. Reports of the Chair A. Citizen Petitions in Lino Lakes in 2005 8. New Business A. Discussion of Term Limits of Commissioner's within the Charter By-laws B. Discussion Pertaining to the Definition of the Commission's Role C. Annual Charter Commission Report D. Set Agenda for January 12,2006 Meeting 9. Adjourn Chair: Mike Trehus Vice Chair: Harold Carlson Secretary: Caroline Dahl 651-486-8995 651-429-1372 651-484-4678 Charter Commission April 14,2005 Page 1 DRAFT CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION DATE : April 14,2005 TIME STARTED : 7:36 P.M. TIME ENDED : 8:16 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Dahl,Aldentaler,Trehus,Handrick,Vacha,Duffy, Warren,Williams,Bor, Storberg, Carlson, and Zastrow MEMBERS EXCUSED : Montain MEMBERS UNEXCUSED : None COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT : Councilmembers Carlson,Dahl, and Stoltz COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT : Councilmembers Reinert and Mayor Bergeson STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT : None. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Commissioners arrived by 7:00 P.M. and began reading a number of documents that had been provided by city staff. Chair Trehus called the regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission to order at 7:36 p.m. on April 14, 2005. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Trehus stated the Commission needed to discuss the agenda. It was anticipated to be a joint meeting with the City Council. At 6:15 p.m., he received a call from City Administrator Gordon Heitke cancelling the joint meeting. Mr. Heitke informed him of the situation born out in the documents received tonight. The Charter Commission had been discussed at a previous City Council work session. The role of the Charter Commission in the pavement management plan was discussed. Mr. Heitke mentioned frustration on the part of the City Council. Following this work session, a number of Councilmembers had questions. City Attorney Barry Sullivan's letter indicated a joint meeting should not be conducted at this time. Council Member Donna Carlson stated she was left a message at 4:51p.m. today that she later picked up. The message told her to check her email. City Attorney Barry Sullivan had reviewed the Agenda for tonight and started receiving calls with questions. Mr. Sullivan would not be at the meeting and felt a need for the Charter Commission to have the same training as the City Council. Attorney Sullivan suggested the meeting be delayed and was asked to put in a letter to Council. Council Member Carlson indicated uncertainty over attending this meeting. She was 1 Charter Commission April 14, 2005 Page 2 DRAFT also concerned about the open meeting laws. She thought she would attend rather than take a chance. Chair Trehus asked if Council Member Carlson was just an observer tonight. Council Member Carlson stated she was confused at this point.. She wondered if it was wrong for the Commission to talk to the City Council this evening. Commissioner Bor stated she did not know the history of joint meetings and asked for clarification. Chair Trehus stated joint meetings between the Charter Commission and the City Council had been going on for 10 years that he has been aware of. He noted there was a quorum of the Council present. Chair Trehus stated Mr. Heitke indicated there would not be a joint meeting. He noted there was a quorum of the City Council present tonight. Council Member Stoltz stated he had been in Alexandria all day. He felt he had walked in here fully prepared to have a joint meeting. He noted the Council Members had a training session. He was a little puzzled procedurally. Council Member Stoltz indicated is a big advocate about working with professionals and suggested there be a joint meeting in July. Council Member Carlson stated it was hard for her to say what should be done. There were definitely concerns expressed during the training. Commissioner Vacha asked if a decision was made after the April 6th work session, then why was the Charter Commission informed eight days later. He assumed an opinion was formulated after that meeting. There was plenty of time to inform the Commission. Commissioner Warren stated it appeared to her that the City Council received some training. The Charter Commissioners should also have the same training to get a clear idea of what each body's role was. Since the two groups had not had an opportunity to talk with each other, assumptions were being made on what the Charter Commission is trying to do. It appears to be an adversarial sense,which is not the Charter Commission's intention. The Charter Commission desires to have a sensible road construction and maintenance plan. The Charter Commission intends to be an aid in that process.Yet, it appears this is getting adversarial for no reason except for a lack of communication. Rather than waiting until July, she proposed the Charter Commission have a special training issue. Then there could be a special meeting to iron out any issues so that the July meeting could be a productive one. A road referendum was an important issue. 2 Charter Commission April 14, 2005 Page 3 DRAFT Commissioner Handrick stated she did not think the Commission should go ahead with a joint meeting this evening. It is clear from staff and those not present there was no intention to have one this evening. It would therefore be unfair to conduct a joint meeting. Chair Trehus advised this was a lot to consider within in a short timeframe. All Commissioners present agreed it was not a joint meeting of the City Council and the Charter Commission. He noted the Commissioners needed to approve the agenda. Council Member Dahl asked how they could approve the agenda if it was not a joint meeting. Commissioner Vacha advised the Commission could just move the joint meeting to a future date. Commissioner Carlson advised Item 4 on the Agenda could be deleted. New Item 6 F could be a discussion on when they would hold the joint meeting. MOTION by Commissioners Zastrow, seconded by Commissioner Warren,to approve the agenda as amended by Commissioner Carlson deleting Item 4 and adding Item 6 F. Motion carried. OPEN MIKE No one was present for open mike. JOINT MEETING WITH COUNCIL Deleted from the Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Dahl asked if this Item could be moved to the end of the meeting. Chair Trehus agreed since it was a very different meeting. He added Item 7D,Approval of Minutes. DISCUSSION OF JOINT MEETING Chair Trehus noted the Commissioners had all read the letter and asked for comments. Council Member Stoltz advised he felt he did not need to be here tonight. He was at a loss to know what to do. Commissioner Bor advised she was new to this process. A failure in communication was very plain in the letter. This body has wanted to get an early start and to encourage a process to 3 Charter Commission April 14, 2005 Page 4 DRAFT encapsulate the needs of the City. She wanted the City Council to hear the discussion around the communication plan. The Charter Commission wanted a successful outcome. Commissioner Handrick advised she was very disappointed. Tonight was a big night for her family and she chose not to go because of the importance of this meeting. Commissioner Warren advised they were at an impasse on how it ever got to this point. The Commissioners do not have the benefit of what the City Council heard regarding the role of the Charter Commission and how it should interact with the City Council. Before the Commissioners consider a joint meeting they should have that information. The pavement management report is an excellent report. It would help to understand the situation Commissioners are in so they can know how to go forward and what are their roles are here. She was aware they made commitments for only four meetings this year. However, if they want to be on a good footing with the City Council,they need to receive the same training sooner,not later. Commissioner Handrick agreed. She spoke to the representative from the League of Minnesota Cities who has agreed to come to the July 14th meeting. The Commissioners could have gone to the training a few weeks ago and then had this joint meeting. This was completely inappropriate behavior on the part of the City and a waste of everyone's time. She indicated she could call and set up an earlier date for the training. Chair Trehus advised he felt there was a presumption that this Charter Commission did not understand its scope. He disagreed, and stated that he believed that the commission did in fact fully understand its role,to amend and frame the Charter. The Charter is what confers powers to the City. It is incumbent on the Charter Commission to be aware of issues in the City that could potentially be affected adversely or improved by the Charter or an amendment to it. Each member has this responsibility. Therefore the scope of the commission is widespread. The concern about the Commissioner's training and their understanding about what they are here to do is unfounded. He also added that the next commission meeting could have a dual purpose: The Commission could have the presentation and then conduct a joint meeting after, or just continue the joint meeting until July 14, 2005. Commissioner Handrick advised she was concerned about waiting for the meeting on July 14`h since they had intended to place it on the Fall referendum. It would be a good idea to have the League of Minnesota Cities speak on the role of Charter Commissions if there is information the Commissioners do not have. She noted anyone was capable of reading the League of Minnesota Cities' booklets on line. Council Member Dahl advised she received one of the booklets during the training. Commissioner Handrick asked what information Council Member Dahl learned at the training that the Charter Commissioners might not be aware of. 4 Charter Commission April 14, 2005 Page 5 DRAFT Commissioner Duffy stated she wondered how the situation got to this point. There was to be a meeting with the City Council but after a discussion with the League of Minnesota Cities,the Charter Commission was a pariah. It appears the Commissioners can not speak to the Council because the two groups were not allowed to talk to each other. Commissioner Handrick advised there was no common courtesy to let the Commissioners know before they arrived at this meeting. Commissioner Duffy noted there were many years of history with no issues. Now all of a sudden,the City Council cannot have a joint meeting with the Charter Commission. It appears to be so rush,rush and she wondered why the City Council needed to receive training. Council Member Carlson advised the decision to not have a joint meeting came after the training session. Commissioner Bor stated she attended the City Council's training,but saw it as a dialog discussion. She noted training had a didactic component with a clear objective. She thought it was an open dialog with some consultation. Council Member Carlson advised both attorneys were present at the training. She noted the Charter Commission Secretary could get a copy of the tape for the session and perhaps it could be cut down to the portions regarding the Charter Commission discussions. Commissioner Handrick questioned why the.decision was made at 6:00 p.m.not to have a joint meeting. Council Member Carlson advised the minutes do not contain that detailed information. They decided to tape the meetings so the information would be available. Council Member Dahl stated she has a taped copy of every meeting. It was easier than to go to the City to get tapes. Commissioner Warren advised the Commission of her concerns about the language in the April 12, 2005 letter to Mr. Heitke from City Attorney Hawkins. It stated"I do not believe that the City Council is under any legal obligation to engage in any discussions or obtain direction from the Charter Commission". She was further concerned that the City Council then received training that indicated it did not need to communicate with the Charter Commission. The power is vested in the Charter Commission unless the Charter is changed. Council Member Carlson advised there was discussion at that meeting of the importance of talking to and coming to an understanding with the Charter Commission. She thought sometimes in writing people come across differently than face to face. There was still confusion for her being told things had been talked about previously. She questioned the meaning of the word "modify" and asked if that did not mean"amend". 5 Charter Commission April 14,2005 Page 6 DRAFT Chair Trehus advised at the joint meeting last year,the City Council felt the Charter was the reason the road referendum failed. Commissioner Handrick advised the City Council did not say it,but he felt the Members danced around it. Chair Trehus agreed and indicated that was his"take"on it. It was followed up in a letter in July by the City Administrator,which indicated that a charter amendment was a part of the pavement management plan. In a discussion with the city administrator, a finalized pavement management plan was stated to be needed before the five-year plan completed. Council Member Carlson advised the five-year plan was mentioned in the agenda. Commissioner Bor explained that the Charter Commission was supposed to review the five year plan. Chair Trehus advised there was only one year where the City was in compliance with the five year plan requirement dictated by the charter. All the agenda items are relevant to the Charter document. He did not understand the basis of canceling the joint meeting. Commissioner Storberg asked the Council Members what they thought. Council Member Carlson advised she had wanted to know about the role of the Charter Commission to frame and amend the Charter. She wondered what that meant in relation to how the two groups interact. Commissioner Zastrow advised that only by working together could they adjust it to make it work. If the City Council wanted something done, it could be voted on. They needed to try to work together. Chair Trehus agreed that was the key. He indicated he had told Mr. Heitke the Charter Commission felt they were all on the same team. He thought it was regrettable that it had come to this at such an unprecedented time. Commissioner Handrick advised the City Staff owed the Commissioners an apology for this waste of their time this evening. Commissioner Storberg asked Council Member Stoltz for his thoughts. Council Member Stoltz advised he was at a loss for words tonight. He thought he was walking in land mines. He had seven years experience with a different city than Lino Lakes and was still trying to get his arms around what a Charter Commission does. He felt each body wanted the best for its citizens;both wanted great roads. He questioned why it had to be them versus us. He 6 Charter Commission April 14, 2005 Page 7 DRAFT asked Mr. Heitke for information on what the Charter Commission did. Council Member Stoltz stated he probably received more training than the other City Council Members. He questioned where the two groups go from here and indicated he believed each member of the City Council and the Charter Commission needed to look within themselves for answers. He wondered why the 2003 referendum failed and did not know that answer. He noted the question needed to be answered so that each could determine what lessons were learned. Both the Charter Commission and the City Council had a role. They would not agree on every issue,but they needed to respect each other's position. Council Member Stoltz stated the City Council needed to be careful not to make blanket statements about the Charter Commission and vice versa. Everyone should try to get along. Commissioner Storberg advised the Charter Commission was really fifty-one percent(the majority)of the people. They have tried for 20 years to weaken the Charter. The City Council and the Charter Commission were two different entities. The City Council does not have 100 percent of the power. Council Member Stoltz asked why the two groups could not have the same vision. Council Member Bor asked how the City Council received the communication this was a we/they situation. She suggested that at the Fall meeting,the two groups should move forward to have better communication. She stated she has a deep respect for the process and noted the people in this City were educated. If the people would do the right thing,residents would end up with the right thing for the City. Council Member Bor stated she believed the Charter Commission could partner with the City Council to achieve this. Commissioner Zastrow advised the Charter was basically rules. The Charter Commission tries to interpret them. The City Council should be familiar with the rules which are like a road map. Commissioner Storberg advised that for the last twenty years there have been many different City Councils. Each one relied on the City Attorney and received the same interpretations. The City Council was paying for the same update. The real problem is that the City government does not want to be controlled by the Charter Commission. Commissioner Carlson advised if the Commissioner's role is to frame and amend the Charter, the Commissioners want to be informed before they make an amendment. They all want to feel they were well informed, and that information was covered from A through Z. That information has to come from the City Council and City staff. Chair Trehus asked where else could the Charter Commission get that information. He noted there was an election in 1995 to more or less remove chapter 8 from the Charter, and it failed horribly. The residents do not want to give up their power. After that, the City Council came to the next joint meeting and said the City could not fix the roads. The Charter Commission asked the City Council how they could say this when they had never tried to work within the charter. So the city decided to give it a try, and in 1997 there was a road project proposed and the 7 Charter Commission April 14, 2005 Page 8 DRAFT referendum passed. He added that even if a referendum does not pass, it does not mean the Charter has failed. All the Charter does is give the residents the right to say yes or no. Council Member Stoltz asked the Commissioners not to make blanket statements that all of the Council Members felt that way. He stated he understands the basics of the Charter. There was so much history,but with the new people there needs to be a chance to bridge the communication issues. Chair Trehus thanked Council Member Stoltz for coming so he had a chance to meet the Commissioners and get some communication started. There were very strong misconceptions going on based on these documents. Chair Trehus hoped Council Member Stoltz could refer to the Council Members some of the Commissioner's concerns and insights and commented they are all in this for the greater good of the City. He noted there will always be differences in opinion,but ultimately the right choices will prevail. ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Handrick, seconded by Commissioner Carlson,to adjourn the meeting at 8:16 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Czajkowski Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 8 Charter Commission August 4, 2005 Page 1 DRAFT 1 2 CITY OF LINO LAKES 3 CHARTER COMMISSION 4 5 6 DATE : August 4,2005 7 TIME STARTED : 6:35 P.M. 8 TIME ENDED : 8:24 P.M. 9 MEMBERS PRESENT : Dahl,Aldentaler,Trehus,Handrick,Vacha 10 Duffy,Bor,Richard Williams,Rosemary Williams, 11 Storberg, Zastrow and Carlson 12 MEMBERS EXCUSED : Warren 13 MEMBERS UNEXCUSED : Montain 14 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT : City Clerk,Ann Blair(part) 15 16 17 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 18 19 Chair Trehus called the regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission to order at 6:34 20 p.m. on August 4, 2005. 21 22 APPROVAL OF AGENDA 23 24 Chair Trehus added Item 5F, Council Minutes Discussion. 25 26 OPEN MIKE 27 28 No one was present for open mike. 29 30 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 31 32 January 13, 2005—Commissioner Storberg referred to page 3,paragraph 2, and requested that 33 paragraph be removed from the minutes. 34 35 MOTION by Commissioner Vacha, seconded by Commissioner Duffy,to approve the January 36 13, 2005 Charter Commissioner minutes as amended. Motion carried with Commissioner 37 Bening abstaining. 38 39 April 14,2005—Chair Trehus advised he has many corrections to make to the minutes. He 40 proposed he correct the minutes and have them distributed for approval at the next meeting. 41 42 Commissioner Storberg referred to page 7, line 3, and corrected the word"sated"to "stated". 1 Charter Commission August 4,2005 Page 2 DRAFT 43 MOTION by Commissioner Duffy, seconded by Commissioner Handrick,to table the April 14, 44 2005 Charter Commission minutes to the next meeting. Motion carried with Commissioner 45 Bening abstaining. 46 47 May 5,2005—MOTION by Commissioner Aldentaler, seconded by Commissioner Vacha,to 48 approve the May 5,2005 Charter Commissioner minutes, as presented. Motion carried with 49 Commissioner Bening abstaining. 50 51 Commissioner Bening requested the Commission receive the minutes before the next meeting 52 packet goes out. 53 54 Chair Trehus asked the City Clerk to distribute the draft minutes to all members that have e-mail. 55 56 Commissioners Zastrow, Carlson and Bor arrived at the meeting at 6:52 p.m. 57 58 The Commissioner recessed to the Council Chambers for a group photo. 59 60 DISCUSSION ITEMS 61 62 Road Reconstruction Proiects—Chair Trehus distributed copies of the feasibility studies for the 63 current road reconstruction projects, Shenandoah are and West Shadow Lake Drive area. He 64 stated those are the two projects the City is undertaking for the 2005 referendum. He also 65 referred to an update on the projects provided in the packets from the Community Development 66 Director. 67 68 Chair Trehus advised he is involved with one of the projects. There was a neighborhood meeting 69 but not all the residents were notified about the meeting. He stated he would have liked the 70 meetings to start sooner due to the many components of the project. There was a petition 71 submitted from residents to order the feasibility study. Residents thought they were petitioning 72 for a feasibility study only but now the project is now going through the entire City process. 73 74 Chair Trehus suggested the Commission discuss this issue with the Community Development 75 Director at the joint Council/Charter Commission meeting. He stated one reason the 76 neighborhood meeting was so late in the process was due to the Charter requirement that the City 77 wait one year after the project failed the last time. 78 79 Commissioner Duffy suggested the Commission look at the Charter and possibly amend it to 80 eliminate the one-year waiting period after a project has failed. 81 82 Pavement Management Policy/Plan—Chair Trehus advised everyone received a copy of the 83 Pavement Management Policies in their packet. He referred to the section regarding Assessment 84 Rate noting the cost has almost tripled in the last two years due to the new policy. 85 86 2 Charter Commission August 4, 2005 Page 3 DRAFT 87 Communication to Residents—Chair Trehus stated their was a memo from the City 88 Administrator in the packets indicating the proposal for hiring a communications specialist to 89 develop and implement a communication plan failed by a 2-2 vote of the Council. 90 91 Commissioner Dahl stated that for her,the proposal came in too late. She stated it would have 92 been better if the plan had started last fall. Also,the City did not know how much it was going to 93 cost. The bid was for$26,000 - $27,000 but that did not include expenses,materials or any 94 mailings to residents. She stated that she and Councilmember Carlson had asked for a 95 communication plan much earlier and noting came from that. There was also no guarantee the 96 plan would have worked. 97 98 Chair Trehus stated he does hope the Council agrees that the City does need a communication 99 plan. However,timing is an issue. The Charter Commission role in this is to understand the 100 process and see if the process should be changed. This issue will be discussed further at the joint 101 meeting. The Commission may suggest the Charter be amended at some point in time. 102 103 Commissioner Bor stated it is not a Charter issue if the referendum and road reconstruction 104 process is being followed according to the Charter. 105 106 Commissioner Bening stated the Commission role is to frame and amend the Charter. The 107 Commission does not need to get into so much detail such as the engineering aspect of road 108 reconstruction projects. 109 110 Five-Year Plan—Chair Trehus stated an update regarding the Five-Year Plan was included in 111 the packets. 112 113 Commissioner Term Expirations—Chair Trehus advised every two years some of the 114 Commissioner's terms expire. He stated the following Commissioner's terms expire at the end 115 of this year: Aldentaler,Dahl,Bening,Montain, Trehus,Vacha, Richard Williams, and Zastrow. 116 He distributed applications and asked those Commissioner's to fill them out and resubmit. 117 118 Chair Trehus stated all application should be submitted to him. He noted there is no limit to the 119 numbers of terms a Commissioner can serve. 120 121 Council Minutes—Chair Trehus stated many Commissioners are reviewing the Council minutes 122 on the City's web site. However,the web site is not up to date. The City Clerk has indicated the 123 delay to improve. If any Commissioners would like the Council minutes included in their 124 packets or e-mailed to them let the City Clerk know. 125 126 Commissioner Dahl indicated she would talk to the City Clerk about sending hard copies of the 127 minutes to Commissioner Vacha and Aldentaler. She will also speak to the City Clerk about the 128 delay in getting Council minutes on the City's web site. 129 130 3 Charter Commission August 4, 2005 Page 4 DRAFT 131 NEW BUSINESS 132 133 Set October 13,2005 Agenda—Chair Trehus advised the following items would appear on the 134 October 13, 2005 Charter Commission agenda: 135 136 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 137 138 2. Approval of Agenda 139 140 3. Open Mike 141 142 4. Joint Meeting with Council 143 A. Road Reconstruction 144 B. Pavement Management Report 145 C. Communication to the Residents 146 D. Five-Year Plan 147 E. Eminent Domain Information/Discussion 148 149 5. Brief Recess 150 151 6. Approval of Minutes 152 A. April 14, 2005 153 B. August 4,2005 154 155 7. Old Business 156 157 8. New Business 158 A. Discussion of Term Limits of Commissioner's within the Charter By-laws 159 B. Discussion Pertaining to the Definition of the Commission's Role 160 C. Annual Charter Commission Report 161 D. Set Agenda for January 12, 2006 Meeting 162 163 8. Adjourn 164 165 Commissioner Bening suggested a discussion regarding the possible amendment of the Charter 166 excluding Council Member's from the Charter Commission also be added to the agenda. 167 168 A vote was taken on adding this issue to the agenda. A discussion of amending the Charter to 169 exclude Council Member's from the Charter Commission will not be added to the agenda for 170 discussion. 171 172 It was noted that Commissioner Bening would forward any information received from the 173 League of Minnesota Cities regarding Eminent Domain to the Commission prior to the next 174 meeting. 4 Charter Commission August 4, 2005 Page 5 DRAFT 175 176 ADJOURN 177 178 MOTION by Commissioner Zastrow, seconded by Commissioner Duffy,to adjoum the meeting 179 at 8:24 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 180 181 Respectfully Submitted, 182 183 Kim Points 184 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 185 5 City of Lino Lakes Home Rule Charter Commission 2004 Annual Report In 2004 the Lino Lakes Charter commission saw or participated in the following developments: • The filling of all the vacancies in the commission,which had gone as long as two years unfilled, • Updating of the Commission's by-laws to be consistent with the city's current practices, • Reception and discussion of a letter to the Mayor and City Council about the charter by a resident affected by a proposed road reconstruction project. (That project went to a referendum under state statute and was turned down by the voters in the November 2003 election), • Election of new officers of the commission(Chair Trehus,Vice Chair Carlson, Secretary Dahl), • Efforts to collect and file archives of the charter and the commission, • A joint meeting with the City Council(April 8,2004)where the following was discussed: 1. The 2003 road reconstruction election and why it wasn't approved, 2. The anticipated development of the Pavement Management Plan, 3. City communication with the residents about the city charter and how it affects them, 4. The 5-year financial plan per city charter, 5. Bonding implications in areas of the city exempt from chapter 8 of the charter, 6. The aforementioned letter to the Mayor and City Council and the handling of any similar letters from residents. • A discussion of the open meeting law and how that relates to charter commissioners, • Reception of a letter to the commission on 7/8/04 from the City Administrator indicating that staff feels the Charter may need to be modified to get road improvements completed within the City. • A special meeting on 7/19/04 to draft a letter to the City Council and City Administrator repeating a perceived need for thorough communication with the residents about the city charter and it's effect on assessable improvement projects such as road reconstruction, • Review of the draft Pavement Management Plan, • A review of financial information that showed staff-directed expenses under the Charter Commission section of the city budget. Chair Trehus agreed to seek clarification from the Finance Director. Respectfully submitted on this 6`b day of October,2005, Mike Trehus,Chair Approved this 13`h day of October,2005 by the City of Lino Lakes Charter Commission City of Lino Lakes Home Rule Charter Commission 2005 Annual Report In 2005 the Lino Lakes Charter commission saw or participated in the following developments: • Discussion of the city's 5-year financial plan which had not been updated per city charter, • Discussion of the city's Pavement Management Plan,and that it did not contain a communication plan, • A request by the Commission that the city revise its financial records for 2004 such that they do not indicate the Commission spent monies for attorneys fees when in fact it was city staff that directed the expenditures. This request was not granted,however, some modification of how expenditures related to the city charter are recorded has been considered. • The creation an adoption of an application form to be used by applicants for membership on the commission, • Discussion of other charter cities in Minnesota, • The cancellation of the annual 4/14/05 joint meeting between the city council and the charter commission,which occurred minutes before the meeting was to take place. The city council had met previously on 4/6/05 and discussed charter cities with an attorney from the League of Minnesota Cities. Subsequent questions from council members arose,resulting in a letter from City Attorney Bill Hawkins clarifying the powers of the charter commission on 4/12/05. On 4/14/05,a letter from City Attorney Barry Sullivan was drafted citing"unresolved" "fundamental issues regarding the role and authority of the City Council and the Charter Commission," and advised that a joint meeting should not occur until both groups"have the opportunity to consider the important information that the LMC(League of Minnesota Cities) attorney will provide." Who actually cancelled the regularly scheduled annual joint meeting is unknown,but an apology from the City Council to the commission over the"unfortunate timing of the events"was submitted on 5/4/05, • The meeting with LMC,which had been planned in January for July,was moved to a special commission meeting on 515105, • Two road reconstruction projects were initiated by the city, one in the Shenandoah area and a second on the West Shadow Lake Drive area. The Shenendoah project was successfully petitioned against under the charter by a majority of the affected residents , • The completed Pavement Management Policies document was reviewed, • An invitation to a joint meeting was extended to the City Council, • A plan to hire a consulting firm for the purpose of communicating to the residents city-wide concerning road improvement projects and the charter was not approved by the city council, • The question of whether to attend the proposed joint meeting will be visited by the City Council at the October 10,2005 meeting, Respectfully submitted on this 6`h day of October, 2005, Mike Trehus,Chair Approved this 13a day of October,2005 by the City of Lino Lakes Charter Commission MINUTES LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION SPECIAL INFORMATIONAL MEETING Date: May 5,2005 Time Started: 7:05 p.m. Time Ended: 9:10 P.M. Commissioners Present: Rosemary Storberg, Caroline Dahl,Richard Williams,Tom Vacha, Don Aldentaler, Cori Duffy,Mike Trehus,Barbara Bor, Harry Carlson, Lisa Handrick. Citizen Representation: Bob Bening Note: Charter Commissioner Dahl stated City Administrator, Gordon Hietke,requested that the session be taped and Commissioner Dahl took responsibility for this request. Chair Trehus asked for a Commissioner volunteer to take minutes for the information session. Commission Bor offered to do this. Informational Session summary: The League of Minnesota Cities (Ms. Rylee Retzer, Staff Attorney)presented this evening regarding charter cities. Ms. Retzer introduced herself and the intent of her presentation. 1. She was not speaking to Lino Lakes' specific charter in terms of legal inquires. That would be the role of the Lino Lakes City Attorney. 2. She would speak and entertain discussion of Charter City vs Statutory City governments. 3. City Council governance demographics and forms of government would be reviewed. Ms. Retzer provided a handout that summarized this information. Ms. Retzer spoke to the advantages of Home Rule. This allowed for local decision making. Home rule invites involvement of citizens in terms of expressing powers in their city, as long as there is not conflict with state laws. Voters in home rule cities have more control over their city's powers. Conversely, Statutory governments must have state input for change. Ms. Retzer referred to page 4.6 from the Handbook for Minnesota Cities, for a complete summary of advantages of a home rule charter. An adopted charter is a city's basic form of government. The charter can be changed with a referendum or amendment. Ms. Retzer reviewed how an amendment to the charter can be created:proposal by the charter commission; citizen petition,proposal by Council, recommendation by the City commission to Council for an ordinance change which doesn't have to be voted on; or by Council proposal in very small cities (10,000 population or less); see page 4-13 of the Handbook for Cities,Amendments to the charter. Ms. Retzer went on to discuss what makes a good charter. A good city charter provides a workable,responsive organization of the city government. A charter that keeps the level of government simple so citizens and officials understand it,workable and centralized. A good charter encourages and rewards expertise and efficiency in the administration of the city. Discussion moved to the functions of a charter commission and Ms. Retzer referred to page 4-9 in the Handbook document. Frequency of meetings was reviewed: The Charter Commission must meet once a year. Meetings are held to study the city and the charter and contemplate changes (frame and amend). There was discussion on who can the commission consult with regarding existing research/options. Ms. Retzer concluded the evening presentation by offering consultation services available from the League of Cities,which can offer solid provisions and references why the Home Rule Charter City document reads the way it does. They can also assist with an annual law summary and compare other City documents. For new Lino Lakes Commissions, they can provide an orientation to Home Rule at no charge. She also provided a reference"Model City Charter, National Civic League publication, eighth edition, 2003 and the web page for this organization: www.ncl.org. The Commission thanked Ms. Retzer for her review and time. Discussion: Commissioners received a letter from the City Council apologizing for the late communication regarding the Council decision not to meet jointly on April 14. Further discussion evolved to the sharing of a communication(e-mail) from Gordon Heitke, City Administrator by Commissioner Bor. Ms. Bor shared components of this communication with the Commissioners present, stating that she hoped for improved communication between the City Staff and the Commission. Mr. Heitke's stated in the e-mail that he hopes that the session with the League of Minnesota Cities staff attorney was beneficial. He expressed a desire to improve the tone of communications between the Commission and City staff. He stated in the e- mail that it is"not staff s place to change the charter provisions." This was made in reference to the pavement management documents where it is the staff s responsibility to inform Council of the impacts of the charter provisions. Mr. Heitke's e-mail ended with the following statement: "Whether there is any need to amend the charter is up to the charter commission, city council and public as described in the statutes." General discussion between Commissioners occurred in regards to the accounting inquiries in regards to the assigned expense to the charter budget and the staff response to the Commission's inquires regarding this matter. The next Charter Commission meeting is scheduled for August 4, 2005. Meeting was closed by Chairperson Trehus at approximately 9:15 p.m. Meeting Summary submitted by Barbara Bor Charter Commission January 13, 2005 DRAFT Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION DATE : January 13,2005 TIME STARTED : 7:03 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:20 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Dahl,Aldentaler,Trehus,Handrick,Vacha Duffy,Williams,Bor,Montain, Storberg, and Carlson MEMBERS EXCUSED : Warren and Zastrow MEMBERS UNEXCUSED : None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT : City Clerk,Ann Blair (part) CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Trehus called the regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. on January 13, 2005. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Trehus added Item 6G, Council Minutes Discussion and Item 7C, Members Resignations. OPEN MIKE No one was present for open mike. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 14, 2004—MOTION by Commissioner Vacha, seconded Commissioner Handrick, to approve the October 14, 2004 Charter Commission minutes as presented. Motion carried with Commissioner Montain abstaining. REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEES Archives Report/City Web Site(Commissioner Dahl)—Commissioner Dahl advised she contacted the Minnesota Historical Society regarding the names of previous Charter Members. They can look up names to locate previous members but there is a charge of$12.00 per name. She suggested Commissioners split up the names on the list and do their own search. Commissioner Storberg suggested Mr. Weibel is contacted to see if he knows anything regarding the outstanding names on the list. 1 Charter Commission January 13,2005 DRAFT Page 2 Commissioner Dahl advised letters have been sent out to the previous members but the City has not received any responses. The intent is to collect any old Charter documents. Commissioner Handrick and Commissioner Bor volunteered to help locate outstanding names on the previous member's list. Commissioner Dahl stated she would get a list of the names from the City Clerk. The names could also be advertised in the Quad. Commissioner Bor also suggested contacting Betty Friesen regarding this issue. City Website Update(Commissioner Dahl)—Commissioner Dahl advised Lisa Hogstad emailed everyone possible regarding the new website. The new website is up and running. If anyone has any concerns or suggestions, contact Lisa Hogstad at the front desk. City Clerk Blair requested the Commission move to the Council Chambers for a group picture. Response to Charter Documents Letter(Commissioner Dahl)—Commissioner Dahl had previously indicated the City has not received any responses to the Charter Documents letter sent by the City. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Five-Year Plan (Chair Trehus)-Chair Trehus indicated he has no new information on the Five-Year Plan. Commissioner Dahl stated the Council does not have any additional information either. The Commission can ask the City Administrator or could discuss the Five-Year Plan with the Council at the joint meeting. She noted the Five-Year Plan will be updated every year and is a work in progress. Commissioner Montain asked when the Plan would be up-to-date. He stated it seems as though the Commission is always waiting on something to have the Plan finished and in place. Chair Trehus stated the City is currently waiting on the Pavement Management Program to be completed. Commissioner Montain stated the Charter requires the City have a Five-Year Plan. It is the Commission's job to make sure the Five-Year Plan is in place. The Plan can be amended yearly but the framework needs to be in place. Chair Trehus noted the Commission did get a Five-Year Plan. The City is currently doing updates on it. This issue will be discussed at the Joint meeting with the City Council. 2 Charter Commission January 13, 2005 DRAFT Page 3 Commissioner Bor stated she would like to know the history of the Five-Year Plan as well of the dates of completion and dates of the revisions. MOTION by Commissioner Vacha, seconded by Commissioner Carlson,to request an update from City Staff at the next meeting on a Five-Year Plan that is compliant with the City Charter per Section 7.05. Commissioner Montain stated he would also like information on how the Five-Year Plan is tied into the City's budget. Commissioner Storberg suggested property taxes be raised throughout the City to pay for road improvements,which ties into the Five-Year Plan and Pavement Management Plan. Chair Trehus advised he would send a letter to the City Council regarding this issue prior to the joint meeting. MOTION carried. Pavement Management Program(Chair Trehus)—Chair Trehus advised the Commissioner's received a preliminary Pavement Management Report. He asked for any questions or comments. Commissioner Storberg stated she has an issue with the Plan in relation to some of the bad . roadways within the City. It seems as though there are some bad roads in new developments and that the developer should be responsible for those roadways. Commissioner Bor stated the City is working on an AUAR process to provide information to the City on transportation issues with the City. All of the information gathered needs to be shared with residents within the City. The City also needs to make sure every effort is made to communicate the transportation issues, as well as funding issues, to the residents. Communication to the Residents-Chair Trehus stated it was disappointing that there was no reference to communication to residents in relation to the Pavement Management Plan. The Pavement Management Plan as well as communication to residents will be discussed further at the joint meeting with the City Council. MOTION by Commissioner Bor, seconded by Commissioner Duffy, that an update be provided to the Commission on the draft Pavement Management Plan and any communication that may be evolving to residents. Motion carried. Commissioner Storberg stated she would ask City Staff and the City Council about the possibility of the City increasing property taxes city wide to pay for road reconstruction within the City, and to put funds into the Public Works Fund at the joint meeting in April. She indicated she would also ask for clarification on the definition on reconstruction of roadways and new road construction. 3 Charter Commission January 13, 2005 DRAFT' Page 4 Charter Commission Budget—Chair Trehus advised a copy of the state statute regarding the Charter budget was distributed in the packets. The statute states the Charter Commission has up to $1,500 per year to spend at its discretion. A memo from the Finance Director was also in the packets. The memo indicated that regardless of where the funds are put into the budget,the Charter Commission could spend the $1,500. If the Commission needs additional funds, approval from the City Council would be required. Commissioner Storberg stated the City was wrong by spending the Commission's funds for the lawyer's fees. The City does not have the right to do that. Chair Trehus stated that regardless of how the attorney was billed,the Commission can spend up to $1,500 per year at their discretion. Any fund left over go back into the General Fund. Commissioner Carlson stated the attorney's fee should not be shown as a Charter Commission expense. City Staff initiated that expense. MOTION by Commissioner Carlson, seconded by Commissioner Storberg, to have Chair Trehus communicate to City staff,by letter, that any expenditure's shown in the budget as Charter Commission expenditures must be approved by the Charter Commission. The $1,500 expense for the attorney must not be noted as a Charter Commission expense. Motion carried. Application to Charter Commission (Commissioner Dahl)—Commissioner Dahl advised a draft copy of the application to the Charter Commission was distributed at the last meeting. Commissioner Carlson has made some suggestions to the draft. A copy of that draft was distributed. Commissioner Carlson reviewed the suggested changes noting he would like to make the application more user friendly. MOTION by Commissioner Montain, seconded by Commissioner Bor,to use the revised application to Charter Commission as the official application. Chair Trehus indicated he would like to add the statement regarding the addition of a resume to the application. Commissioner Handrick stated she believes if an applicant has a resume,they would automatically attach it to the application. Commissioner Montain agreed to accept the amended motion to include on the application the statement"Attach any additional information if you desire". Commissioner Bor accepted the amendment to the motion. 4 Charter Commission January 13, 2005 DRAFT Page 5 Commissioner Carlson indicated he would email the approved application to the City Clerk and also forward to the Commissioner's. MOTION carried. Review City Council Meeting Minutes for Charter Compliance—Chair Trehus asked if any of the Commissioners had found any issues with the City Council Meeting Minutes. The Commission had no comments. Council Minutes Discussion (Chair Trehus)—Chair Trehus advised the City would no longer be emailing meeting minutes to the Commission. The meeting minutes can be found on the City website. Hard copies are still available to those who request them. He asked the Commission to note any missing set of meeting minutes on the website. NEW BUSINESS Update from League of MN Cities Regarding Other Charter Cities (Commissioner Handrick)—Commissioner Handrick advised she called the League of MN Cities and was sent a list of all Charter cities within the state. She distributed that list along with a list of city Charters available on-line. She stated she also inquired about restrictions of other Charter cities. Mr. Duke Addicks, Attorney from League of MN Cities, responded that he was unaware of other cities that have such strict restrictions as the City of Lino lakes. She indicated she would go on line and review some of the other cities Charters. Also, Rylee Retzer, League of MN Cities, advised she does do Charter presentations for cities and City Councils free of charge. The only charge that would occur is if the Commission had a specific question about a section of the Charter. It was the consensus of the Charter Commission to try to schedule a presentation by Rylee Retzer for the July 2005 Charter Commission meeting. Member's Resignations—Chair Trehus advised he received a resignation letter from Commissioner S. Lane and Commissioner G. Lane. Therefore,the Commission has two vacancies. He asked Commissioners to encourage anyone interested to submit a letter of application. The vacancies will also be advertised in the Quad. Set April 14, 2005 Agenda—Chair Trehus advised the following items would appear on the April 14, 2005 Charter Commission agenda: 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Open Mike 5 Charter Commission January 13,2005 DRAFT Page 6 4. Joint Meeting with Council A. Road Reconstruction B. Five-Year Plan C. Pavement Management Report D. Communication to the Residents E. Charter Commission Budget F. Other 5. Approval of Minutes A. January 13,2005 6. Discussion of Joint Meeting 7. New Business A. Set Agenda for July Meeting B. Confirm League of MN Cities Presentation 8. Adjourn ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Carlson,to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully Submitted, Kim Points TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial,Inc. 6 James Studenski, City Engineer, City Administrator City of Lino Lakes OCT 0 4 2005 600 Town Center Parkway C1T Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 Y OF L11Vq L4 5 Dear City Engineer and Administrator: I am writing concerning this property's inclusion in the Petition for Lakeview Drive Utility Improvements. The "benefitted properties are listed as 6808 —7180 Lakeview Drive and 59 North Road. I believe the petition is defective because we are not in need of utility improvements. As you both should be aware,we had our sewer and water hooked up 1 year ago and they were both placed on our property on North Road about 10 years ago. We paid our assessments and the MUSA charge. In fact Mr Studenski tried to charge us twice for the water assessments and the MUSA so I had to obtain verification that both had been paid before we could proceed. I anticipate the next argument will be that we will be benefitted by the road reconstruction. My response to that is it is not necessary to Lakeview Drive adjacent to our property. I watched the water and sewer extension across the street for the police station being constructed. Because it was an extension for one side of the street, the road was not touched. All the digging was done in the right of way (boulevard) and under the walkway on the Circle Pines side of North Road. Therefore, if the neighbor across from us at 6808 Lakeview Drive needs utility improvements for sewer and water, it could be done in the right of way adjacent to their property. Then any road reconstruction could start on Lakeview Drive north of our property. We do not need or want road reconstruction. Nor should we have to pay for any road reconstruction that is being done only to benefit other people's need for sewer and water. We already have city sewer and water and have paid the assessments. By your own letter, the petition requests "city sewer and water". There is no reason our property should have been included in that petition and it is therefore defective. Chapter VIII, Section 8.01 of our home rule charter states"no assessment shall exceed the benefits to the property". There is no benefit to our property. Sincerely, Pat Rickaby and Robert . o on