HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-31-2012 Charter Packet LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
PRESENTATION BY CITY STAFF ON COUNCIL PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
(CHAPTER 8)
AGENDA
THURSDAY,MAY 31,2012
6:30 PM
1. Call to Order and Roll Call 6:30 PM
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Setting the Agenda: Addition or Deletion of Agenda Items
4. Open Mike/Public Comments
In Appreciation Certificate/Plaque
•'• Jim Drennen 4 years
5. Update: Chao-Lyden
• Exempt Zones -Ordinance
• Commission request for $1400.00 for legal review on Council proposed Charter amendment
• Audio—May 7,2012 Council Work Session
6. Presentation by City Staff on City Council Proposed Charter Amendment(Chapter 8).
A. Following the Presentation Commission discussion
facilitated by Commissioner Sutherland
7. Resolution No. 12-01 90 Day Extension
8. New Business
A. Next meeting date,Thursday,July 12,2012
Adjournment
Christopher Lyden Caroline Dahl Margaret Penn
Chair Vice Chair Secretary
Y1
CITY : OF
1N L KE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 7,2008
TO: Mike Trehus, Charter Commission
FROM: Michael Grochala,Community Development Director
RE: Response to Questions
Below are my responses to the questions contained in your June 24, 2008 e-mail. My
response is underlined and in bold.
1) If the City's most recent Charter amendment proposal were to be adopted and the
exempt zones and their opt-out rights removed, would the residences who
currently have sewer available but aren't hooked up yet then become subject to
assessment for those existing utilities? In other words,would these properties be
assessed retroactively once the charter change took effect, or would they
grandfathered in,and wouldn't pay any money until the time of the hookup?
The amendment proposal has no effect on the residences who already have
utilities available. As with properties outside the charter exempt areas not
previously assessed, a connection charge would be collected at the time of hook
2) If the exempt zones are removed,could the assessment amount and/or hookup
charges for any future project(s)be any different for any of the properties
currently in any of the exempt zones than how those properties would be treated if
the exempt zones remain?
No. Whether you are in or out of the exempt zone does not have an impact on
the assessment amount or hook-up fee. The assessment amount or hook up fee
may vary based on the proiect costs and the benefit received. The hook-up
charge is increased annually to compensate for inflation and construction cost
increase. This cost is applied uniformly to both exempt and non exempt
properties.
JACharteAResponse to Charter Questions.dot
3) Over the past 16 years, some of these residential properties have been protected
by the opt-out clause while the ownership,land use, and makeup of their
neighborhoods has changed,in part due to non-residential zoning. Would
removing the exempt zones and opt-out rights suddenly leave these property
owners susceptible to expenses they might otherwise be protected from? Beyond
this, do you see any way they might be harmed if the zones are eliminated? Is
there any way a similar susceptibility could come about affecting any of the other
properties in any exempt zone?
Under the existing charter provisions an individual, owner occupied, single
family residential unit within the charter exempt areas can opt out. Linder the
proposed amendment all property owners city wide are treated equally. if the
exempt zones are eliminated than they could not opt-out individually, but rather
would be subject to the decision of the majority of property owners within a
specific project area.
4) What might be the impact to the property values of the Tots that would lose the
opt-out rights(if any)? Additionally, could removing the exempt zones affect the
property values of any of the properties in these 3 zones?
No. The charter provision does not have any-apparent relationship to property
values. We sent this question and the proposed amendment to Mike
Sutherland,Anoka County Assessor. His response was that the proposed
amendment would not cause them to automatically adjust any property values. u
wroperty values are based on the market place, indicated by records of property
sales.
5) In all 3 zones,could changing the rules governing assessable projects as is being
proposed give any of those owners legitimate grounds to sue the city for damages
(or incurred costs)?
No. What would the damages be? Assessments, as governed by state law, are
based on the special benefit received as a result of the proieet.
6) The Commission is looking for"before and after pictures" of how the proposed
changes would/could affect these properties. Is there anything else you can
provide to help accomplish this?
As noted in question no. 3, the only difference is that these properties would be
subject to the same requirements as evervone else in the city. They could not
opt-out individuallv,,but rather would be subject to the decision of the majority
of property owners within a specific proiect area.
Please feel free to contact me with questions at (651) 982-2427.
JACharter\Response to Charter Questions.dot ��
r-� I APPROVED
2
3 CITY OF LINO LAKES
4 CHARTER COMMISSION
5
6
7 DATE : July 17, 2008
8 TIME STARTED : 6:37 P.M.
9 TIME ENDED : 9:06 P.M.
i o MEMBERS PRESENT : Aldentaler, Bretoi, Carlson, Dahl, Drennen, Duffy,
11 Gunderson, Lyden, Minar, Stockman Maher,
12 Storberg, Trehus, Vacha, Williams, Zastrow
13 MEMBERS EXCUSED None
14 MEMBERS UNEXCUSED None.
15 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT : None
16 GUESTS PRESENT : Deb Barnes, The Citizen (press)
17
18 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
19
20 Chair Duffy called the meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission to order at 6:37 p.m. on
21 July 17, 2008.
22
23 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
24
25 APPROVAL OF AGENDA
26
27 Commissioner Zastrow asked if the Commission can vote for or against the amendment this
28 evening.
29
30 Chair Duffy requested the addition of two items under New Business (agenda item 47): (1)
31 discussion of the July 16, 2008 email from City Administrator Heitke, and(2) discussion of the
32 open meeting law and communications between Charter Commission members.
33
34 Chair Duffy also requested the addition of one item under Old Business (agenda item#613) to
35 discuss the recent Citizen article regarding the Legacy Project.
36
37 MOTION by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Drennen, to approve the agenda
38 as amended. Motion carried unanimously.
39
40 OPEN MIKE
41
42 No one was present for open mike.
43
Charter Commission APPROVED
July 17, 2008
Page 2
44 APPROVAL OF MINUTES—JUNE 18, 2008
45
46 Commissioner Bretoi requested lines 72 and 73 be amended to read "Commissioners Gunderson
47 and Bretoi prefer to vote in favor of something versus petitioning against something."
48
49 MOTION by Commissioner Zastrow, seconded by Commissioner Bretoi, to approve the June 18,
50 2008 Charter Commission meeting minutes, as amended. Motion carried unanimously.
51
52 OLD BUSINESS
53
54 A. Update on Charter Exempt Zones
55
56 Chair Duffy presented the email correspondence from Ms. Marty dated July 16, 2008 regarding
57 Q&A on Charter Exempt Zones, and the memo from Michael Grochala, Community
58 Development Director, dated July 7, 2008 in response to questions submitted to him by
59 Commissioner Trehus on June 24, 2008.
60
61 Commissioner Trehus stated he asked Mr. Grochala if he had had any conversations with
62 residents in exempt zones regarding the Charter amendment; Mr. Grochala replied he had not.
63
64 Commissioner Minar arrived at 6:51 p.m.
65
66 Commissioner Lyden suggested that letting the exempt zones go would be a viable option to
67 pursue.
68
69 Commissioner Trehus stated he could not think of any way those residents in the exempt zones
70 would be detrimentally affected and this would give them the same rights as all other residents.
71
72 Commissioner Lyden expressed some concern regarding the impact to property values of the lots
73 that would lose their opt out rights based on the response given by Mr. Grochala to question#4.
74
75 Commissioner Carlson suggested that rather than putting this on the ballot,the Commission
76 could request an ordinance change.
77
78 Commissioner Trehus concurred and stated there are only a few properties involved. He added
79 there are currently three exempt zones in the City and a provision was placed in the Charter that
80 specifically applies to them that indicates they do not have to pay assessments until such time as
81 they hook up; these properties would then be under the same Charter as everybody else in the
82 City.
83
84 MOTION by Commissioner Zastrow, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to send a proposal to
85 the City Council to approve by ordinance the elimination of Section 8.07 from the existing
86 Charter. Motion carried unanimously.
87
2
Charter Commission APPROVED
July 17, 2008
Page 3
88 B. Ballot Measure
89
90 Chair Duffy presented a 1995 article written by Kristi Belcamino in the Quad with the headline
91 "Charter amendment wasn't understood; anti-voters lauded for their effort." She noted the article
92 stated nothing could be done unless residents agreed to be assessed for repairs.
93
94 Discussion ensued regarding the pavement management plan and the contents of the 1995 Quad
95 article.
96
97 Commissioner Vacha stated the Charter Commission has spent a considerable amount of time
98 working on the amendment and felt it was important to proceed with the ballot measure.
99
100 Commissioner Lyden stated the Charter Commission's goal should be to put something on the
101 ballot that can get approved.
102
103 Commissioner Dahl stated she wants to see something approved that works for the residents and
104 added she did not feel the Council's amendment is the best thing for the residents. She stated it
105 will be difficult for residents to distinguish between the two proposals.
106
107 Commissioner Drennen stated the voters are going to have to review two complicated versions of
^108 the amendment; the Charter Commission is attempting to accomplish the referendum and protect
109 that right for the citizens. He stated the germaine discussion should be how the Charter
11 o Commission can best accomplish this.
ill
112 The Charter Commission discussed two options:
113
114 Option A: Oppose the City amendment and offer no Charter Commission alternative at this
115 time (status quo)
116 Option B: Oppose the City amendment and offer a Charter Commission alternative
117
118 The Charter Commission discussed the pros and cons of each option.
119
120 Commissioner Drennen stated if the Commission determines it will not offer an alternative at
121 this time, it will be important for the Charter Commission to explain to residents the reasons for
122 its decision, including the fact that the Charter Commission does not want to take the risk of
123 confusing voters on this very complicated issue and that the Charter Commission is pulling back
124 at this time to focus on the issue before the residents, i.e., would you like to have a vote if
125 something impacts you or not? He stated the paramount goal of the Charter Commission is to act
126 on behalf of the residents.
127
128 MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Carlson,to reject the City
129 Council's proposed City Charter amendment. Motion carried (Commissioner Vacha abstained).
130
3
Charter Commission APPROVED
July 17, 2008
Page 4
131 MOTION by Commissioner Bretoi, seconded by Commissioner Gunderson, to offer no Charter
132 Commission amendment proposal at this time.
133
134 Further Discussion
135
136 Commissioner Bretoi stated there was an assumption when Commissioner Trehus made his
137 motion that it included refraining from submitting an alternative amendment at this time. He
138 stated he will withdraw his motion based on the understanding that by having accepted
139 Commissioner Trehus's motion to reject the City's proposal, the Charter Commission is not
140 going to offer an alternative proposal at this time.
141
142 Motion and second withdrawn.
143
144 The Charter Commission discussed the recent article regarding the Legacy Project and use of
145 public funds.
146
147 C. Communication Plan
148
149 Discussion ensued regarding the communication plan and the importance of stressing to voters
150 that the issue before them is very complex and the Charter Commission does not want to confuse
151 voters.
152
153 Commissioner Lyden stated the Charter Commission should consider submitting an editorial �-
154 regarding the Charter amendment.
155
156 Chair Duffy stated the Charter Commission could also submit an article for publication in the
157 City newsletter. She added it may be helpful to have two articles run side by side with
158 information about the amendment and Q&A. She added the Charter Commission cannot
159 advocate a position one way or the other and the article should simply state the facts.
160
161 It was the consensus of the Charter Commission to submit articles for publication regarding the
162 amendment and to include Q&A.
163
164 Commissioner Storberg arrived at 8:21 p.m.
165
166 Commissioner Gunderson suggested scheduling a meeting with the Quad press to make sure the
167 Charter Commission gets equal time and suggest to the Quad the inclusion of a split page article.
168
169 Commissioner Drennen stated the Charter Commission should review its communication plan
170 and determine the estimated cost for the plan. He offered to work on the communication plan;
171 Commissioners Trehus, Dahl, Lyden, Zastrow, Gunderson, and Duffy also agreed to work on the
172 communication plan. He also suggested sending out a press release.
173
4
Charter Commission APPROVED
July 17, 2008
Page 5
174 Commissioner Lyden suggested including information on the City's website and/or on public
175 television.
176
177 It was the consensus of the Charter Commission that the first priority for the communication plan
178 subcommittee is to prepare a cover letter to the City Council and to submit an article for the City
179 newsletter.
180
181 MOTION by Commissioner Bretoi, seconded by Commissioner Minar, to empower the
182 communication plan subcommittee to submit a communication on behalf of the entire Charter
183 Commission without having to come back to the entire body for approval. Motion carried
184 unanimously.
185
186 D. Statement of detailed expenses incurred up to July 2008 and Charter Budget
187 Balance
188
189 Chair Duffy presented the statement of detailed expenses through June 2008 and noted a balance
190 of$3,422.46. She added there will be some additional expenses incurred for TimeSaver Off Site
191 Secretarial and Marty Law Firm, resulting in a remaining balance of approximately $3,000.
192
193 Commissioner Dahl stated the Charter Commission will need to give consideration to its budget
194 request for 2009.
^195
196 NEW BUSINESS
197
198 Chair Duffy presented the July 16, 2008 email from City Administrator Heitke inviting her to
199 provide an update at the August 4, 2008 City Council work session regarding the Charter
200 Commission's review of the Citizen's Task Force/Council-initiated amendment.
201
202 Commissioner Drennen suggested that Chair Duffy attend the August 4, 2008 City Council work
203 session and respectfully decline to offer any information whatsoever.
204
205 A. Next meeting date to be decided
206
207 It was the consensus of the Charter Commission to meet on Monday, September 15, 2008, at
208 6:30 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Charter Commission is scheduled for October 9, 2008.
209
210, B. Set next meeting agenda
211
212 It was the consensus of the Charter Commission that the September 15, 2008 meeting agenda
213 will include discussion of the communication plan and ballot question language.
214
5
Charter Commission APPROVED
July 17, 2008
Page 6
215 Miscellaneous
216
217 Chair Duffy stated that Chief Judge Gary Schurrer's term ended on June 30th and Timothy
218 Bloomquist is now the Chief Judge.
219
220 Open Meeting Law
221
222 Chair Duffy stated she discussed the open meeting law with the attorney and Ms. Marty has
223 assured her that everything sent thus far via email does not violate the open meeting law. She
224 reviewed the provision contained in the handbook from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding
225 use of technology and reminded all Commissioners to remain cognizant of the open meeting law.
226
227 ADJOURN
228
229 MOTION by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissionar Minar, to adjourn. Motion carried
230 unanimously.
231
232 Respectfully submitted,
233
234 Barbara Hughes
235 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
6
1
(Sent via e-mail-July 18, 2008)
July 18, 2008
Dear Honorable Mayor Bergeson:
The Lino Lakes Charter Commission has received and reviewed the 2008
Council's Task Force Amendment proposal. In response, on July 17, 2008, the
Commission voted to reject this proposal. In addition, the Commission voted to
recommend that the city council repeal Section 8.07 of Chapter 8 of the existing City
Charter by ordinance pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes 410.12 Subd. 7.
The Charter Commission recommends the repeal of Section 8.07 of the existing
Charter because it agrees with the current city council that having special provisions
for certain segments of the city are not in the city's best interests. The Commission
feels that it is best that the entire city abide by the same set of rules.
The Commission finds in the proposed Council Task Force amendment that the
neighborhood process to decide potential improvements is confusing, conflicting,
and unworkable. Also, the Commission wants to keep residents' rights to
referendum on street reconstruction projects. After careful review and deliberation,
the Charter Commission has determined that the revised Council Task Force
amendment does not adequately meet the needs of the citizens of Lino Lakes.
Respectfully,
Cori Duffy
Chair, Lino Lakes Charter Commission
cc: Julie Bartell, City Clerk
Julie Bartell
rA�rom: Caroline Dahl <denali2010@q.com>
,ent: Friday, May 25, 2012 12:32 PM
To: Julie Bartell
Subject: Fwd: Charter Estimate
Importance: High
From: "Jeff Karlson" <of .karlson(a�ci.lino-lakes.mn.us>
To: "Caroline Dahl" <denali2010nq.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 8:32:47 AM
Subject: RE: Charter Estimate
The Council has not taken any action on this yet.
From: Caroline Dahl rmai1to:denali201O ft.com1
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 8:27 AM
To: Jeff Karlson
Cc: Julie Bartell; lillydogcute; Dahl, Caroline
Subject: Fwd: Charter Estimate
Importance: High
1''1
May 23, 2012)
Dear Mr. Jeff Karlson,
What is the official City Council response to the Charter Commission's request per Karen Marty's estimate,
$1400.00, legal review of the City Council's proposed Charter amendment?
Cordially,
Caroline Dahl,
Vice Chair Lino Lakes Charter Commission
From: "Caroline Dahl" <denali2010na.com>
To: "Julie Bartell" <Julie.bartellnci.lino-lakes.mn.us>
Cc: "lillydogcute" <lillydogcuteklycos.com>, "denali2010" <denah201Oag com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 1:25:02 PM
Subject: Charter Estimate
(May 1, 2012)
Hi Julie,
Below is our attorney's estimate for reviewing the City Council's proposed Charter amendment. Please forward
to the Mayor and Council for the Council's work session May 7th. The Charter Commission is requesting an
additional $1400.00 to cover legal review of the City Council's proposed Charter amendment.
Thank you,
Caroline Dahl Vice Chair
Lino Lakes Charter Commission
1
Caroline,
I would estimate this will need a budget of about$1400 for analysis, review, and meeting to discuss and address
the proposed charter amendment.
Karen E. Marry
k - Aw Fixm.
Karen E. Marry
MARTY LAW FIRM, LLC
3800 American Blvd. W., Suite 1500
Bloomington, MN 55431
952-921-5859
651-294-1026 (fax)
z
CITY "' `O F
INC) KE
Christopher Lyden, Chair SENT VIA U.S. MAIL and
Lino Lakes Charter Commission DELIVERED VIA MESSENGER
6275 Holly Drive W March 13, 2012
Lino Lakes, MN 55038
RE: Proposed City Charter Amendment
Dear Chair Lyden,
The Lino Lakes City Council has been considering a proposed amendment to the City
Charter, Chapter 8 regarding Public Improvements and Special Assessments. The amendment
is based on the charter amendment proposal prepared in 2007 by the Citizen's Task Force to
Review Charter Provisions Pertaining to Public Improvements (the"Task Force
Amendment").
Historically the Task Force Amendment was referred to the Charter Commission in 2007 and
in response the Charter Commission submitted a substitute amendment to Chapter 8 (the
"Charter Commission Amendment"). After careful review, the council determined to submit
neither the Task Force Amendment nor the Charter Commission proposed amendment to the
voters. Rather on March 24, 2008 the Council approved the first reading of a new ordinance
amending Chapter 8 (the "2008 Council Amendment") and referred it to the Commission for
required review. The only difference between the Task Force Amendment and the 2008
Council Amendment is that the latter repeals Section 8.07 of the City Charter that establishes
certain rules for certain geographical areas of the city commonly known as the "exempt
zones". Before the Charter Commission review period on this amendment ended, a citizen
generated petition was submitted calling for an amendment to Chapter 8. Once the petition
was certified it was required, under state statute, to go to the voters and thus the Council
decided to send only that one question forward.
As previously noted, the Council has currently been reviewing the Task Force Amendment.
Through deliberations, the council has determined that the following additions to the Task
Force Amendment are appropriate:
1. Section 8.02, Subd. 5 provides that if any portion of the project is to be paid from
property taxes, registered voters may file a petition requesting a vote on the
improvement. Such petition must be received within 30 days of the City Council
ordering the improvement and be signed by registered voters equal to at least 12
percent of the votes cast in the last general municipal election. Based on 2011 election
this number would be 517 signatures. In such case, the city may only proceed after
obtaining approval of a majority of the voters voting on the question.
600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014-1 182
Phone: 651-982-2400 • Fax: 651-982-2499
2. Section 8.02, Subd. 6 states that in the event the ballot question fails, the requirements
of Minnesota Statutes, section 475.58, subd. la will apply. These requirements
stipulate that the same ballot measure cannot be resubmitted to the voters within a
period of 180 days. If it fails a second time, it may not be resubmitted within a period
of one year.
3. Minor technical clarifications as follows:
Section 8.01, Subd. 3, Line 4, added the word"local"before improvement.
Section 8.02, Subd. 3, added last sentence.
Section 8.02, Subd. 4, Line 3, added the word"thereafter" before apply.
Section 8.02, Subd. 4, Line 6, added phrase "and Subdivisions 5 and 6."
With these additions, a new charter amendment ordinance has been prepared (the "2012
Council Amendment"). On March 12, 2012 the Lino Lakes City Council approved the 1st
reading of the 2012 Council Amendment, Ordinance No. 05-12 Amending Chapter 8 of the
Lino Lakes City Charter, Regarding Public Improvements and Special Assessments. The
Council hereby submits this amendment for review and comment by the Charter Commission
in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, subd. 5. It is requested that the
Charter Commission review the 2012 Council Amendment and respond to the Council within
60 days after the date of this letter. The Council understands that the Charter Commission
may extend the time for review by an additional 90 days if(within the initial 60-day period)
the Commission files with the Council a resolution determining that additional time is needed.
The Council appreciates your efforts, and looks forward to receiving your input on this
amendment.
Sincerely,
Juli Bartell
City Clerk
Cc: Caroline Dahl, Charter Commission Vice Chair
Enclosure: Ordinance No. 05-12
1"Reading: March 12, 2012 Publication:
2° Reading: Effective:
CITY OF LINO LAKES
ORDINANCE NO. 05-12
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE LINO LAKES CITY
CHARTER, REGARDING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes does ordain:
Section 1. That Chapter 8, Section 8.01, 8.02, 8.03, 8.04, 8.05 and 8.06 of the Lino
Lakes City Charter be and are hereby repealed:
gec4ieng.01. Power-te Make r
r-evemeRts and Levy Assessmen
the benefits to the pr-epei4�,.
Seefien 8.02. Eff t _ nt,a, er-Preyisi ia; Emeert s p-ems_>d
ccIeeal n
t-vven�y (120) days after-this Ghai4er- goes i—i- effee" —.d before laeal impr-eveffiei4s ean be aeted
upen shall mean a pub!H&
> >
of assessme-pAs, penalties for- delinqueney in making > of said >
or-dinanee(s) shall alse provide for- insWiffiefA payfaefAs and fietiees to be given the
appellate if
e > >
mefftse
-r - -
Subdivision 3. When a pr-epesed impr-evemen4is -a4le wed under- the ferell-k-.,
si-x# e (1) year- the-eenelusion-e the-publie heai7ing, pf4eeed en
engineer-east of the
ten 0 the, net award the ,
LJ LiL Zl a
Subdi-,=isien 4. When a pfopesed kRpr-evemeiA is—disal=ewed—tmder- the f6r-egaing
siabdivisions, the Geuneil shall net vete an the same t within a period ef ene (1) ye—ar
after-the publie hear-iag on said impfevemefA-.
eest of City sen4ees te stfeets, sidewalks, or- other- publie er- private pr-apefty may be assess
b nef as .
11speeial assessments"
is petitioned fer-by ene hundred 8.03 of this ehapter,
,
,
Section 2. That Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter be amended by adding thereto
a new Section 8.01 to read as follows:
Section 8.01. Local Improvements Defined; Charter Provisions Effective.
Subdivision 1. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term "local improvements" means
any public improvements financed in whole or in part from special assessments.
Subdivision 2. For the Turposes of any objection or petition under this Chapter, (a) each
parcel is considered to have one owner, and only one person or entity may sign an objection or
petition on behalf of any additional owners of that parcel, and (b) if the same person or entity
owns more than one parcel affected by a local improvement, that person or entity may sign an
objection or petition only once; and (c) for the purpose of identifying recipients of any notice
under this Chapter, owners are determined in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section
429.031, subdivision 1.
Subdivision 3. The City may undertake any local improvements not forbidden by law
and levy special assessments to pay all or any part of the cost of such local improvements. The
.-� principal amount of special assessments for any local improvements shall not exceed the cost of
the local improvement, including all design, financing and related costs, and shall not exceed the
benefit to the property determined in accordance with state law.
Subdivision 4. Local improvements shall be carried out exclusively under the provisions
of this Charter, except to the extent otherwise provided in Section 8.02.
Section 3. That Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter be amended by adding thereto
a new Section 8.02 to read as follows:
Section 8.02. Local Improvement Procedure.
Subdivision 1. Local improvements shall be carried out in accordance with state law,
except as provided in this Section.
Subdivision 2. If more than 50 percent of the owners of the real property abutting on the
streets named in the mailed notice of the improvement hearing underMinnesota Statutes, Section
429.031, subdivision 1 sign written objections regarding the local improvements, and file such
objections with the cityclerk lerk prior to the improvement hearing or present such objections to the
presiding officer at the hearing, then after the hearing the council shall schedule a s ep cial
meeting to be held at least 45 days after the date of the hearing.At least 10 days prior to the date
of the special meeting, the city shall publish notice of the special meeting and mail notice of the
special meeting to all owners who received the initial notice under Section 429.031, subdivision
1. Such published and mailed notice shall include all the information provided in the initial
mailed notice, along with a statement as to the number and percentage of affected owners who
filed objections at or before the hearing_ At the special meeting?, the council shall hear additional
testimony on behalf of any objecting_property owners, and may consider further written or oral
testimony from appropriate city officials and other witnesses, as to the nature of the local
improvements, the advisability of proceeding with such local improvements, the proposed
financing for such local improvements, any proposed amendments to the plans or financing for
such local improvements, and the methodology used to calculate individual special assessments
for such local improvements.
Subdivision 3. A resolution ordering the local improvements (as such local
improvements may have been amended in response to the hearing or special meeting under
Section 8.02, Subdivision 2) may be adopted at any time within six months after the date of the
special meeting by vote of a maiority_of all members of the council when the local improvement
has been petitioned for by not less than 35 percent of the owners of the real property abutting on
the streets named in the petition as the location of the local improvement; and when there has
been no such petition, the resolution may be adopted only by vote of four-fifths of all members
of the council. The effective date of a resolution ordering the local improvement must be at least
30 days after adoption. Within five days after adoption of the resolution, a summary of the
resolution must be mailed to the affected owners. If more than 50 percent of the affected owners
sign written objections regarding the resolution, and file such objections with the city clerk prior
to the effective date of the resolution the resolution does not become effective and the local
improvement is not ordered. Any objections filed under Section 8.02, Subdivision 2 will not
constitute objections under this Subdivision 3. If the required number of owners do not file a
.-� timely objection under this subdivision, the local improvement may proceed after the effective
date of the resolution, except as otherwise provided in Subdivisions 5 and 6.
Subdivision 4. If timely objections are not filed by the required number of property
owners under Subdivision 2 of this Section, Subdivisions 2 and 3 of this Section do not thereafter
apply to the subject local improvements, and all subsequent_procedures for approval of and
levying of special assessments for those local improvements shall be in accordance with state
law, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision and Subdivisions 5 and 6. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary in Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.031, subdivision 1, clause (f), a
resolution ordering the local improvement may be adopted at any time within six months after
the date of the hearing by vote of a majority of all members of the council when the local
improvement has been petitioned for by not less than 35 percent of the owners of the real
property abutting on the streets named in the petition as the location of the local improvement;
and when there has been no such petition, the resolution may be adopted only by vote of four-
fifths of all members of the council.
Subdivision 5. If any portion of the cost of a local improvement is to be paid from ad
valorem taxes, the ordering of the local improvement shall be suspended for 30 days after the
effective date of the resolution ordering the local improvement under subdivision 3 (if no timely
objection was filed by the required number of owners) or under subdivision 4. If a petition
requesting a vote on the local improvement signed by registered voters equal to at least 12
percent of the votes cast in the last general municipal election is filed with the City Clerk by the
end of that 30-day period, then the City may proceed with the local improvement, and may issue
general obligation bonds to finance the local improvement, only after obtaining approval of a
majority of the voters voting, on the question at a general or special election. The ballot shall
generally describe the proposed local improvement, the estimated principal amount of bonds to
be issued to finance the local improvement, and the estimated percentage of total debt service on
the bonds expected to be paid from ad valorem taxes.
Subdivision 6. If the voters do not approve a local improvement and issuance of bonds
therefore at an election required by subdivision 5, the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section
475.58, subd. la shall apply.
Section 4. That Chapter 8, Section 8.07, of the Lino Lakes City Charter is hereby
repealed:
--�, >
♦'`t
• de.d vT•nu .fi e5:mteW .q y J_ Isom g3uj"T L T ueff oa.-s Jn (Y/ T_ - _y_._T-�
G
G
G
G
l;,5uuqq:l@jul
apaglul
G < G
.
G < G G
(aATT/T Ez lL 4umLT4Trr
G
G
,/\ A iBf n JS T P;;:gf9QEIS cnmxn99nTr-
for- the Fhapawing of these impr-evemeRts speeially benefit a pafeel of real pr-epefty, ka Ee are
September 30, 1993, the ewaerleeeupant ef sueh r-esidei4W upAt ma file a petition with the 4-
Y city
Clerk objee6fig te the speeW assessmeR4 te be levied against �As,�her- par-eel. Sueh petkien shall.
be filed with the Gky at er before the first publie hearing te be held on the pfajeet. A-fter-
filing-osueh pe6t-ien t of spec 'r��ssess saeh ewner's- pr-aper-ty—€erassessfnen�s as e
b
Jeff Reinert, Mayor
Attest: Julianne Bartell, City Clerk
Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this_day of , 2012.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was introduced by Council
Member and was duly seconded by Council Member and
upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
The following voted against same:
Synopsis of Imp, ment Procedures
Proposed Charter h_.,.ndment Comparison
Topic Minn.Stat.Chapter 429 Charter Charter Amendment
Proposal
1. Scope/Applicability Governs only improvements paid,in Same as Ch.429 Same as Ch.429
part,with special assessments
2.Measurement/Allocation of Benefits=Market Value Increase. Same as Ch.429 Same as Ch.429
Special Assessments Roughly proportionate.
3.Process by 100%Petition If initiated by 100%of abutting If initiated by 100%of Same as Ch.429
property owners and 100%costs benefitted property owners and
assessed. 100%costs assessed.
Reports,Hearings, No feasibility report required. Feasibility report required. Same as Ch.429
Notices&Subsequent
Petitions
No public hearing required. Public hearing required. Same as Ch.429
Two weeks mailed,published
notice of hearing.
Council may order improvement by 60 day waiting period before Same as Ch.429
majority vote any action can be taken(50 of
the 60 days are waivable by
subsequent petition).
Council may order project by
majority vote.
4.Process by less than 100% If initiated by 35%of abutting If petition received by 25%or If initiated by 35%of abutting
Petition frontage,Council may order project more of benefited owners owners Council may order project
biy majority vote. simple majority vote of council by majority vote.
to initiate.
If initiated by less than 35%of If petition received by less If initiated by less than 35%of
abutting frontage,Council may order than 25%of benefitted property abutting owners Council may order
project by 4/5(super majority)vote. owners a 415 vote(super project by 4/5(super majority)vote.
majority)vote is required to
initiate project.
Reports,Hearings, Feasibility report is required. Feasibility report is required Feasibility report is required
Notices&Subsequent
Petitions
10 days mailed,two weeks published Two weeks mailed,published 10 days mailed,two weeks
notice of hearing. notice of hearing published notice of hearing.
Public hearing is required Public hearing is required Public hearing is required
No action may be taken by If greater than 50%of abutting
council for 60 days owners object before or at hearing,
special meeting is held at least 45
da slater.
Hearings,Notices& Council may order project within 6 Property owners,proposed to Council may order project within 6
Subsequent Petitions months of hearing be assessed,have 60 days months of special meeting.
(continued) following hearing to petition
against/for project.
If petition against is received If greater than 50%of abutting
signed by a majority of owners owners file petition against within
proposed to be assessed the 30 days of council ordering project
project cannot proceed at the the project cannot proceed.
expense of property benefited.
If no objection by petition or
election,Council may proceed
with the improvement between
60 days and 1 year after the
public hearing.
5. Referendum None Required. Must hold referendum If Subject to reverse referendum if
funded,in part,from general funded in part from ad valorem
fund. taxes. Referendum required only if
a petition received signed by 12%
of the votes cast in the last general
city election is filed within 30 days
after the project is ordered.
6. Reconsideration Not applicable If project is disallowed by if disallowed by election the
petition or vote council shall not question may not be resubmitted
vote on same improvement for 180 days from date of election.
within 1 year of the public If disallowed a second time may not
hearing. be resubmitted for 1 year from date
of 2nd election
7. Cost Increase Not Applicable Bids cannot exceed estimate Not Applicable
by greater than 10%. Only
allowed to rebid once.
8. Special Areas Not Applicable Minn Stat.Chapter 429 No special areas proposed.
governs in 3 special areas.
Exception:Provides for opt out
for single family owner
occupied dwellings.
1 5/25/2012
_,PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROCESS
CITY ACTION RESIDENT ACTION
City Council
proposes project.
City completes report on
OR Improvements which
Includes project scope,
cost and proposed
Citizens petition assessments.
for project.
City Council calls for
Public Hearing;staff Affected property
notifies affected owners can submit
property owners by mail written objection
and citizens by published to the project.
legal notice.
Was written The Council can order
objection received the project with or
City Council holds by more than 50% without amendments
PUBLIC HEARING for of affected NO based on public
public comment. property owners -- comment,without
prior to or at the increasing the project
scope.
YES
Was a petition Project goes to Public
received by more
Citizens can petition to Election.51%of
than 12%of residents
F-f request a vote on the YES voters must approve
improvement project. `,vho voted In the last — the project or It Is
local election within
30 days of ordering stopped.
Council calls for 2nd The Council can order C_NO
City Council holds 2nd the project with or
Hearing to be held at PUBLIC HEARING to take without amendments
least 45 days after the additional testimony, based on public Project moves
1st hearing.Staff hear concerns,work out comment,without forward.
notifies affected differences and revise increasing the project
property owners by mall
and citizens by published project,if necessary, scope.Staff notifies NO
affected property
robjec-tion
ten
Affected property eived by
owners can submit 0%of City Council stops the
written objection to affected property YES
project.
the project, owners within 30
days of ordering the
Charter Commissioner Gunderson introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION
ITEM
RESOLUTION NO. 12-01
RESOLUTION REQUESTING ADDITIONAL STATUTORY TIME PERIOD
FOR CHARTER COMMISSION TO ACT ON CHARTER AMENDMENT ISSUE.
Whereas,the City Council presented to the Charter Commission on, March 13,
2012 a potential amendment to Section 8 of the City's Charter. The Charter Commission
has used their initial 60 days to study said potential amendment.
Whereas,the Charter Commission has determined that more time is required to
fully explore the issue of an amendment to the City Charter. Under the authority of MN
Statutes §410.12, subdivision 5,the Charter Commission may be granted, upon request,
an additional 90 days to respond to the potential amendment.
Whereas,the Charter Commission is formally requesting this additional time
period of 90 days from City Council under the authority of MN Statutes §410.12
subd.(5).
NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Lino Lakes Charter
Commission hereby requests the statutory 90 day time extension set out in MN Statutes
§410.12, subd. (5).
Passed by the Lino Lakes Charter Commission this twelfth day of April 2012.
Chrisop6er L en, Chairperson
A
i Bartell, ity C k
This motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Charter
Commissioner Sutherland, and upon vote being taken thereon, the resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted.
Charter Exempt Zone No. 1
µiv _ .1 .L � ��,-tY b���y, ��,• .
r� a
x
i,
t
4.
ti
'9
Legend
Single Family Owner Occupied Residences
• •
14,
JAI
�{ r
c IRS
xj€1 N
Jj
al
rt t y
f
N}t. � � �.. r!". __ � � •1Y F .:: rk+' 1, �, ��r4'v+E,g...-sr�
4 t
F }
: r
ik
F t -.. 4
AV
17
J'S"��
e=zr x. a aL K Lti .i`EMILaka 24tie 'ff
i •
m
c _
,.
-r754,
Kl-WIT
��� HIV �_ � Z' •�rEn. c
ja
Alt
r
7�' r
r k
Page:2
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
200 South Sixth Street
Suite 470
Minneapolis,MN 55402
�ityof Lino Lakes
Alan Rolek
February 29,2012
LN140-00086 Charter Review
Through February 29,2012
For All Legal Services As Follows: Hours Amount
2/7/2012 SJB Phone call with Grochala regarding 2008 city council 0.40 84.00
charter proposal;conference with M Manderschied
regarding research
2/7/2012 SJB Phone call with M Grochala regarding charter amendment 0.25 52.50
process
2/8/2012 SJB Conference with M Manderschied regarding 0.75 157.50
council-initiated charter; review prior memos on topic
2/8/2012 MJM Intraoffice conference with S Bubul regarding ability to 0.20 36.00
revive past charter amendment efforts
2/10/2012 SJB Review charter amendments;draft memo regarding same 3.00 630.00
2/13/2012 SJB Finalize memo regarding charter commission authority; 2.50 525.00
conference with M Manderschied regarding 2008 city
council amendment,process; email regarding need to
re-start process
2/13/2012 MJM Research and summarize conclusions on timeliness of 1.70 306.00
city council initiated charter amendment
2/21/2012 SJB Meet with staff regarding charter commission proposals; 2.50 525.00
review materials in preparation for same
2/28/2012 SJB Phone call with Grochala regarding ch rter amendment 4, 3.00 630.00
�cj"e_o�r_k. 'im tncluolte � e�en�u.,re i'►►'i► t
2/29/2012 SJB Phone call with Grochala et al regarding charter 2.50 525.00
amendment;draft revision and email
Total Services: $ 3,471.00
j
For All Disbursements As Follows:
2/13/2012 Westiaw Research Charges 65.01
Total Disbursements: $ 65.01
r
Ratwik, Roszak&Maloney, P.A. Page- 3
3/26/2012 JTS Prepare materials for Council workshop. 0.70
Sub-total Fees: 507.50'r361 QgI
Rate Summary
Vl Iq qqq ``11 l
Jay T.Squires 3.50 hours at $ 145.00/hr.
Total Hours: 3.50
4021-0080: Cartway Petition
Professional Services Hours
3/1/2012 JJL Telephone conference with Mike Grochala regarding status of petition; 0.20
Office conference with Courtney Sebo regarding status of dissolution
issue.
3/2/2012 CS Review by-laws of homeowners'association to determine how 0.40 _
property is dealt with upon association's dissolution.
3/5/2012 JJL Review status of road ownership, and availability of attorney's fees; 1.90
Analyze city cartway statute and procedure; Research ability to serve
involuntarily dissolved nonprofit corporation.
3/6/2012 JJL Outline process for cartway approval by Council; Leave message for 0.70
Mike Grochala; Telephone conference with Mr. Grochala.
3/7/2012 JJL Draft letter to Mike Grochala outlining statutory cartway process. 2.00
3/12/2012 JJL Telephone conference with Mike Grochala and Julie Bartell regarding 0.30
cartway procedure.
3/21/2012 JJL Receive e-mail from Mike Grochala regarding Council resolution; 1.00
Telephone conference with Mr. Grochala; Revise resolution and e-mail
to Mr. Grochala; Receive e-mail from Mr. Grochala regarding the legal
description; Telephone conference with Mr. Grochala.
3/26/2012 JJL Telephone conference with Mike Grochala regarding property owner's 1.20
allegations about the petition; Receive and review e-mail from Mike
Grochala regarding contiguity issue; Review statutory cartway"tract"
language; Leave message for Mr. Grochala.
3/27/2012 JTS Review statute and e-mail to Mike regarding notice of hearing 0.30 ?j
requirements.
3/28/2012 JJL Telephone conference with Mike Grochala regarding cartway petition 0.20
schedule.
Sub-total Fees: 1,181.00
Rate Summary
Joseph J. Langel 7.50 hours at $ 145.00/hr.
Courtney R.Sebo 0.40 hours at $ 125.00/hr.
Jay T.Squires 0.30 hours at $ 145.00/hr.
Total Hours: 8.20
4021-0081: Proposed Charter Amendments by Election
Professional Services Hours
3/12/2012 JJL Telephone conference with Mike Grochala and Julie Bartell regarding 0.20
charter amendment process.
Sub-total Fees: 29.00