Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/13/2012 Council Packet (2)Citizen Proposal Same as Charter Commission Proposal. Same as Charter Commission Proposal. Same as Charter Commission Proposal. Same as Charter Commission Proposal. Charter Commission Proposal Governs imps. paid with assessments or general revenues. No assessments or gen. revs. to open new areas. No assessment for maintenance. Direct benefit to occupied property. Adjacent/nearby. Uniform. Same as Ch. 429. _ If 25% of owners (or lots ?), majority vote to initiate. If <25% or council initiated, 4/5 vote to initiate. Task Force Proposal N m- U C4 Same as Ch. 429. N 7 0 cn ct cl Cll If 35% of abutting owners, majority vote to approve. If <35% or council initiated, 4/5 vote to approve. Existing Charter Same as Ch. 429. Same as Ch. 429. All benefited owners, assess all cost. Hearing required. 60 -day waiting period (waivable to 10 days). Chapter 429 Governs only imps. paid in part with assessments. Benefits = market value increase. Roughly proportionate. Owners of all abutting property, assess all cost. No hearing, majority vote. If 35% of frontage, majority vote to approve. If <35% or council initiated, 4/5 vote to . approve. Topic 1. Scope /Applicability 2. Measurement/ Allocation c 0 v a 0 0 0 ri 8. Special Areas 7. Cost Increase 6. Referendum cn bx CD elD 0 os C vc coy CA C ar On fo 41 C et R Topic Not applicable. No limitations. OCD go 'O • < CD =. r. ON o m CD 0 ~ C O �• a o m CD C)' p' CD o CD CD Chapter 429 Ch. 429 governs in three special areas. Single family opt - out. Bids can't exceed estimate by >10%. Only one re -bid. If funded in part from general fund, must hold referendum. CD $ a AD �' o cn o 1-' c y CD ~' ° a -n Existing Charter Same as Existing Charter, except no single family opt - out. Same as Ch. 429. Same as Ch. 429. C -0 o,c4 o o CD CD W `� A'- w E.cDA c a 0 0- 'o • — m O 5 �'0,, Op Dn dQ co co y 2,o C ° w ~a CD 4'' o t-n Task Force Proposal Ch. 429 partly governs in one special area; two special areas deleted. Revised single family opt - out. Same as Existing Charter. If funded in part from general revenue, 60 days for petition to hold referendum. If 12% of votes in last mayoral election file within 60 days, must hold referendum.. o w s 0 0 CCDD ° CD .o AD n CD < CD o »i ]- . 0 0 0 " cn 'C3 " CCDD i o CD -t cn CD w o■ CD ° !yy fa. Al R < ° :'� co �n 0 CD P., m 171 CD AD m y ! ., • C y a 0 .CO .-••, Q' ° `�' to P, 0' G- CD ° CCDD O AD Charter Commission Proposal Same as Charter Commission Proposal. Same as Existing Charter. Same as Ch. 429; but see petition against, above. `D v CD - " ° :7 Z CD a i < CD 0 oa� o 0 o a= rn a • Oro CI" m y ^C act m CD o. E o . w CI cc o °o cn -- a y cD w a C o AD . ci, co CD ao cn Citizen Proposal MEMORANDUM DATE: February 13, 2012 TO: City Council FROM: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director RE: Tentative Charter Amendment Schedule As the council is aware a proposed amendment to the City Charter is subject to certain requirements established in State Statute. After reviewing the specific requirements and deadlines staff has developed the following schedule for consideration: 1. Ordinance review at C.C. Work Session March 5, 2012 2. Consider 1St Reading of Ordinance Amending Charter March 12, 2012 3. Submit Ordinance to Charter Commission for review March 14, 2012 a. 60 day review period ends May 11, 2012 b. 90 day extension ends (if requested) August 9, 2012 4. Consider 2nd Reading of Ordinance and Ballot Language August 13, 2012 5. Submit ballot question to Anoka County August 24, 2012 Attachments 1. July 2007 Report of the Citizen's Task Force to Review Charter Provisions Pertaining to Public Improvements. 2. Proposed Charter Amendment Ordinance 05 -08 S: \Community Development \Projects \Charter - Proposed Amendments\2012 -02 -13 CC memo draft amendment schedule.doc The City of Lino Lakes Report of the Citizen's Task Force to Review Charter Provisions Pertaining to Public improvements July 2007 Lino Lakes, Minnesota Contents Background 1 Task Force Process , ,1 Report 3 Recommendation .9 Observations 12 Appendix A: Resolution Appendix B: Pavement Management Report Financing Plan Appendix C: Pavement Management Policies Appendix D: Projected Tax Impacts Appendix E: League of MN Cities Letter Appendix F: Risk Management Memo 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Background In a 2006 Quality of Life Survey, 60% of respondents favored changing the Lino Lakes City Charter so that the City Council can plan and fund the reconstruction of streets in a responsible manner. The sentiment was echoed throughout the 2030 visioning process (September 2006- February 2007) in a public forum and in visioning issue team discussions, resulting in a 2030 Vision Plan recommendation to change the charter. The 2030 Plan also stated that a citizen's group should initiate the effort. Citizen's Task Force Created by City Council In February 2007 the Lino Lakes City Council adopted Resolution No. 07 -30 (see Appendix A) appointing the 2030 Visioning Committee to form a task force from its members. The 2030 group was made up of citizens randomly selected from the community. Seven interested members of the Visioning Committee formed the Citizen's Task Force, which was charged with studying the charter's impact on the Council's ability to manage streets and consider the need for an amendment. Over the past four months, the task force met 14 times. Detailed information on the Task Force is available at www.ci.lino- lakes.mn.us. Task Force Process The Citizen's Task Force to Review Charter Provisions Pertaining to Local Improvements began meeting in March with a series of presentations that provided background information on the City's Pavement Management Plan, financing recommendations to fund projects in the plan, a comparison of statutory and charter cities, and the process for assessing the costs of public improvements under state statutes and under Lino Lakes' charter. In an effort to hear from all stakeholders in this issue, joint meetings were held with members of the Charter Commission, City administrators, and members of the City Council. Public comment was taken at a public forum and through the city's website. The Issue and Its Significance At issue are the city's authority and apparent inability to reconstruct its streets —a vital public improvement and infrastructure asset —in the most responsible, timely and cost - effective manner. Lino Lakes has 84 miles of paved roads valued at $90 million —a significant asset that is in the city's best interest to preserve in order to provide for the safe and efficient travel of its citizens, retain property values, keep the city attractive and desirable, and minimize costs to property owners and taxpayers. In its Pavement Management Plan, the city has outlined a schedule for the reconstruction of roads rated "problem" (see Figure 1) and a financing plan that would pay for the reconstruction at the lowest cost overall (see Appendix B), yet the city has not been able to fully execute the plan because of provisions in Section 8 of the Charter. Current charter provisions for referendum force a citywide election for each localized street reconstruction project rather than having issues be resolved by affected property owners and the City Council. Referendums failed in 2003 and 2005. Figure 1. Pavement Management Recommendations PROPOSED FUNDING (5% INFLATION) Plan Year Reconstruction 2005 (1) $0 2006 (21 50 2007 (3) 51,435,000 2008 (4) S2.750.000 2009 (5) 53.035,000 20)0(6) 59,485.000 2011 (7) 51.577 500 2012 (8) 51 655,000 2013 (9) 5I ,737 500 2014 (10) 61.825,000 Maintena 10 -YR P' JEI,)ENT 3,014.1-1' 'IS SCENARIOS PRC.JECTEC 10 -YEAR ROAD CONDITIOnI$ NO FIJNDS !:r:: e . • 1) OCI 40 .0-! . 10 , S7C: o'Cl Wi . 100 25.1 32% 2006 (2) C::F.RENT 25% 1T84 58% PROR.J$EE, 5% '4% 81% 17Y GUNDITIONS 24). 53% Pan Year uvenay seatcoal I otal 2005 (1) 5140 000 590.000 5230,000 2006 (2) 5190.000 5157,500 5347,500 2007 (3) $200 000 S165,000 33665,000 2008 (4) 6210,000 S175,000 5385,000 2009 (5) 5220 000 5182,500 5402,500 2010 (6) 5230,000 ' Si 92 500 5422,500 2011 (7) 5242.500 5202,500 $445,000 2012 (8) 5255,000 5212,500 5457,500 2013 (9) 5267 500 5222,500 5490,000 2014 (10) 5280,000 _ 5235,000 6515,000 OCI 0 -40 Problem- Reconstruction OCI 40.01-70 Marginal - Overlay OCI 70.1-100 Adequate - Sealcoat Figure 2. 10 -Year Cost Comparison (Money Spent to Reconstruct Roads in Need) $11 Million Savin $28 Propmt;d Pavement Management Plan 2 current Practice 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Why This Issue Needs to be Resolved This issue needs to be resolved because of: 1. Financial reasons o Increased costs to the city and taxpayers o Problem continues to compound because streets continue to deteriorate because of lack of reconstruction o Wasted feasibility studies 2. Safety and liability concerns 3. Public support for changing the charter 1. Financial Reasons Increased Costs to the City and Taxpayers As a result of the failed referendums, the projected timely reconstruction of streets hasn't begun, forsaking a potential savings of $11 million (see Figure 2). This backlog of reconstruction projects cannot be ignored. Inflation drives up the cost of reconstruction every year due to higher costs for labor and construction materials. An example of the cost of deferring reconstruction is West Shadow Lake Drive. According to the city's Pavement Management Report, "The estimated cost of reconstruction in 2005 was $2,375,700. It is estimated the 2008 costs would be $2,750,000 due to increases in construction costs." (Source: Pavement Management Report, 2004, Page 12) Problem Continues to Compound Roads have a life span. Even with proper maintenance, they eventually wear out and need to be rebuilt. In Lino Lakes, 11 miles of roads are at that critical stage. The city's Pavement Management Report shows that streets will continue to deteriorate. As a result, the number of miles requiring reconstruction will increase. If streets already identified as needing reconstruction aren't completed and removed from the list, the number of projects and expenses will grow, compounding the problem. Over time, the financial burden could become so great that the city would never be able to manage it. Citizens should be concerned that the city can't, with any predictability, complete reconstruction projects in a timely manner using the most cost - effective financing available. Wasted Feasibility Studies Every proposed reconstruction project requires a feasibility study. The cost of the study varies depending upon existing conditions, existing information and the size of the project. Studies are good for 5 -10 years though if voters turn down a project, it may need to be updated. The chart below shows the cost of studies and updates for upcoming projects. Project Cost of Initial Feasibility Study Cost to Update Shenandoah $30,000 $3,000 West Shadow Lake Drive $55,000 $4,500 Source: Lino Lakes City Engineer Affected property owners absorb feasibility costs if a project moves forward. If voted down, money required for the study is wasted. 3 2. Safety and Liability Concerns Streets that are in poor condition may be dangerous creating a public safety hazard that could result in costly litigation for the city. 3. Public Support for Changing the Charter In the 2006 Quality of Life Survey, residents favored a charter change to deal with road reconstruction by a margin of 60% to 20 %. Concerning street conditions, 72% rated the overall condition of city streets as excellent or good in 1996. Ten years later, the excellent or good rating dropped to 53 %. Pertinent information and data garnered from research and input from city staff, Council, experts, Charter Commission and the Community • Pavement Management Plan Lino Lakes now has a comprehensive plan for road maintenance and reconstruction.' The Pavement Management Report (available at www.ci.lino- lakes.mn.us) documents the condition of each street and provides a 10 -year maintenance and reconstruction schedule. The Pavement Management Report, along with the city's pavement management policies (see Appendix C) and financing recommendations (see Appendix A) make up the city's Pavement Management Plan. The PMP shows that when roads are maintained and reconstructed of the right time, the city saves money in the long run. The city is funding maintenance (seal coat and overlay) through an annual property tax levy so that portion of the Pavement Management Plan is on target. The reconstruction portion (removal and replacement) is stalled because, under provisions of Section 8 the City Charter that force a citywide vote, the recommended financing formula is subject to referendum. Two referenda have been unsuccessful, compounding the problem and furthering Council's inability to follow the PMP. • Financing methods available for improvements The charter provision only requires referendum if special assessments are used to fund part of a road reconstruction project. There are other methods of financing available to the city but these methods are more costly and would increase dramatically the burden on taxpayers. This should be a concern to the taxpayer because if City Charter restrictions are not removed, more expensive financing methods may be the only option for the Council. Figure 3 on the following page illustrates alternative financing methods, including funding a public improvement through an annual property tax levy only. It would be one way to avoid a citywide election but it is a more expensive option. Note the sharp increase in property taxes; compared to the small, gradual increases in the financing alternative presented in the Pavement. Management Plan. Also, an action by the Legislature to enact levy limits may reduce the Council's ability to use property tax levies as a financing mechanism. 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Figure 3. Comparison of Financing Alternatives City of Lino Lakes, Minnesota Comparison of Financing Alternative At 5% Growth In Tax Base 25.000% 20.000% 15.800% 10.000% 0.000% ../.".111' — -- 2005 2006 2007 2000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 t Annual Property Tax Levy Only — - Annual Tax Levy For G.O. Bonds For Reconstruction (no special assessments) -* Annual Tax Levy For C.O. improvement Bonds For Reconstruction (Inc. special assessments) — Annual Tax Levy For G.O. Improvement Bonds For Reconstruction and Storm Water Utility 7 ap: trIgct E (1 Another option that would avoid a citywide vote would be to specially assess 100% of the cost of a reconstruction project against the property owners who benefit. That option presents two problems. It would be too expensive for property owners and the city would need to show that the value of the property increased by the amount of the assessment. That is difficult to do and may be subject to expensive litigation. The recommended financing plan as presented in the Lino Lakes Pavement Management Plan is the most cost- effective and tax- friendly financing method available. It takes into account Lino Lakes citizens' sensitivity to increased taxes by spreading costs evenly among all taxpayers, assigning specific costs to the property owners who would benefit the most, and minimizing the use of city property taxes. Figure 4 on the following page shows the projected annual tax increase that the PMP's financing plan would have on a $228,000 house. For tax impacts on additional home values, see Appendix D. 5 Figure 4. Projected Property Tax Impacts Projected Property Tax Impacts $228,400 Residential Homestead Year Projected Tax Rate Impact (5% Growth) 1.529% Annual Impact $ 34.93 Projected Tax Rate Impact (7.5% Growth) 1.529% Annual Impact $ 34.93 Projected Tax Rate Impact (10% Growth) 1.529% Annual Impact $ 34.93 2005 2006 1140% $ 48.87 2090% $ 47.73 2.042% $ 46.65 2007 2.605% $ 59.49 2.485% $ 56.76 2.373% $ 54.21 2008 3.429% $ 7831 3.195% $ 72.97 2.982'% $ 68.11 2009 4.240% $ 96.83 3.859% $ 88.13 3.520% $ 80.39 2010 5.107% 5 116.63 4.540% $ 103.69 4.047% $ 92.43 2011 5.393% $ 123.18 4.683% $ 106.96 4.080% $ 93.18 2012 5.656% $ 129.19 4.797% $ 109.57 4.084% $ 93.28 2013 5.901% 5 134.78 4.889% $ 111.66 4.067% $ 92.90 2014 6.140% $ 140.23 4.968% $ 113.47 4.039% $ 92.26 • Unique Charter Of the 854 cities in Minnesota, 107 are charter cities. Only two have provisions that hobble a City Council's ability to reconstruct streets. According to analysis by the League of MN Cities, "...no other charter city in Minnesota has a charter provision requiring a referendum on special assessments." Ed Cadman, Research Attorney, League of MN Cities Comparing Lino Lakes' charter (Section 8.04, subdivision 2) with corresponding special assessment and local improvement provisions of other charter cities, Mr. Cadman adds, "I have found no other city which has a similar mandatory referendum in its charter. The closest charter to Lino Lakes in this respect is found in Mounds View..." Mounds View's charter does not require a referendum but it is similar to Lino Lakes' charter regarding petitions (see Appendix E). 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • Charter Commission In a joint meeting between the Charter Commission and the Citizen's Task Force, Commissioners expressed strong support for the charter and its provisions, which can force a citywide referendum on a specific reconstruction project. They further said the charter's intention when adopted was to improve citizen representation at a time when Lino Lakes was developing quickly. They said citizens were frustrated by unreasonable and unwanted assessments and lacked confidence in the city's leadership. Provisions in Section 8 were meant to guarantee that citizens would have a voice in public improvement projects. In a communication dated June 22, 2007, the Charter Commission made its position clear that it is opposed to any changes pertaining to referenda inhibiting the Council's ability to reconstruct streets. In our opinion, these historical perspectives voiced by the Charter Commission no longer reflect current reality in the City of Lino Lakes. • Public Comment Most of the comments from the public at the May 15 public forum came from property owners living along West Shadow Lake Drive. Most spoke in favor of amending Section 8 of the Charter. They cited safety and environmental issues that can't get resolved. Several also expressed frustration that public improvements that a neighborhood needs and wants can't get past citywide voters. A strong statement of support for a charter change came from Vern Reinert, former mayor and one of the original drafters of the Lino Lakes City Charter who said times have changed and the charter needs to be revised. This is another portion of his statement from the May 15 public forum: "Back then Lino Lakes was "way out" of the cities. There was no or little tax base. There was no planning (very little) in place. In the state we were about #1 in tax rate. Lino Lakes didn't have staff or the experts that we have today. There was basically no zoning. Things were really done "shooting from the hip ". This concerned the residents. The sewer and water back 32 years ago was only in the SW corner. At that time there was a plan was to run it up Lake Drive with no means to pay for it. There was no tax base. This concern is what led to the creation of the charter. A plan had to be put in place for the future. There was no intent to jeopardize the ability of a city council to run and manage a city. It was put in place to protect and manage development. It was not meant to halt development. Now the council and the commission are too far apart. They need to come back together and that is the responsibility of both parties. The charter needs to be tweaked and looked at based on how the city is today and not how it was at the time the charter was created." Vern Reinert, Former mayor 7 • Citizen Surveys Based upon a professionally- conducted and statistically- valued Quality of Life Survey: 1. Nearly 50% of residents have concerns about the overall condition of the city streets 2. 66% express awareness of current Charter provisions 3. 60% strongly favor or favor changes to the Charter (2030 Visioning Plan, Appendix C, p. 7) Moreover, the city has become more sophisticated in its planning process and public confidence is expressed in its City Council and administration by the following: 1. 72% feel city moving in right direction 2. Mayor and council overall job rating approval is 59% with 21% expressing disapproval 3. City employees received overall a 63% job rating approval with only 16% expressing fair to poor performance (2030 Visioning Plan, Appendix C, p.4) As former Mayor Reinert said, conditions have changed. Citizens believe the city is moving in the right direction by a ratio of three -to -one and have high ratings for the performance of the mayor, council and city employees. The alleged lack of confidence in city leadership and administration no longer prevails. • Safety & Liability Because of the poor condition of some of Lino Lakes' streets, the city has sought advice on what steps it should take to warn of dangerous streets in order to protect itself from expensive litigation.. Step #1 is to have a Pavement Management Program, which the city has. It may also need to consider warning signs. Also, a risk management attorney with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust advised that, if the charter is not amended, that the city keep referenda on the ballot to demonstrate the Council's commitment to road reconstruction. (See Appendix F or G). Options Available to Community, City Council and Charter Commission 1. Do nothing 2. Finance through methods other than special assessment 3. Amend the charter 8 Objective Criteria Used to Evaluate Each Option The Citizen's Task Force evaluated options in terms of the degree to which they resolve the issue in a responsible manner, giving the city the ability to allow reasonable public input into the reconstruction process while at the same time allowing the City Council to exercise its fiduciary and stewardship duties to preserve the public's investment in infrastructure so that it is safe and well - managed. 1. Do nothing is not an option. The status quo does not deal with the problem. The city has adopted policies that provide for the management of the city's infrastructure in the most responsible and cost- effective manner possible, yet it is unable to fully implement its policies because of provisions in Section 8 that force local improvement projects to a citywide vote. As a result, streets in poor condition remain in poor condition threatening: o Safe and efficient travel o Property values o The City's attractiveness and desirability In addition, the city is unable to access widely used funding resources, which impacts the City's ability to minimize costs to property owners and taxpayers. 2. Financing through other methods, while available to the Council, is not fiscally prudent. 3. The Citizen's Task Force supports amending the charter. The current requirement for a citywide vote on each specific localized reconstruction project only frustrates the ability of the Council and property owners to work out their differences. Recommendation of Citizen's Task Force It is the conclusion of the Citizen's Task Force that provisions of Section 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter do limit the City Council's authority and ability to reconstruct roads in the most responsible, timely and cost - effective manner. Wording of Section 8 must be changed to allow the city to move forward with its Pavement Management Plan and its recommended financing formula. Also, any process pertaining to reconstruction or public improvements should allow opportunities for reasonable public input and a constructive dialogue between affected property owners and City Council /City administration. We recommend that Section 8 be amended to remove the citywide referenda. Instead, we offer an alternative that would still give citizens —those directly affected by the project — the final say as to whether or not an improvement project is allowed. We propose the opportunity for a neighborhood veto. Property owners directly affected by the project rather than voters across the city would be able to turn down a project. We do not feel that this recommendation takes away the voice of Lino Lakes' citizens. In fact, we believe it will protect and even strengthen the voice of citizens directly affected 9 by an improvement project, while at the same time giving the City Council a chance to do what it needs to do be a responsible steward of our city's assets. It is the recommendation of the Citizen's Task Force that the provisions of Chapter 8 be amended to read: ALTERNATIVE CHARTER LANGUAGE Section 8.01. Local Improvements Defined; Charter Provisions Effective. Subdivision 1. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term "local improvements" means any public improvements financed in whole or in part from special assessments. Subdivision 2. For the purposes of any objection or petition under this Chapter, (a) each parcel is considered to have one owner, and only one person or entity may sign an objection or petition on behalf of any additional owners of that parcel; and (b) if the same person or entity owns more than one parcel affected by a local improvement, that person or entity may sign an objection or petition only once; and (c) for the purpose of identifying recipients of any notice under this Chapter, owners are determined in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.031, subdivision 1. Subdivision 3. The City may undertake any local improvements not forbidden by law and levy special assessments to pay all or any part of the cost of such local improvements. The principal amount of special assessments for any local improvements shall not exceed the cost of the 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 8.02. Local Improvement Procedure. Subdivision 1. Local improvements shall be carried out in accordance with state law, except as provided in this Section. Subdivision 2. If more than 50 percent of the owners of the real property abutting on the streets named in the mailed notice of the improvement hearing under Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.031, subdivision 1 sign written objections regarding the local improvements, and file such objections with the city clerk prior to the improvement hearing or present such objections to the presiding officer at the hearing, then after the hearing the council shall schedule a special meeting to be held at least 45 days after the date of the hearing. At least 10 days prior to the date of the special meeting, the city shall publish notice of the special meeting and mail notice of the special meeting to all owners 10 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 improvements may have been amended in response to the hearing or special meeting under Section 8.02, Subdivision 2) may be adopted at any time within six months after the date of the special meeting by vote of a majority of all members of the council when the local improvement has been petitioned for by not less than 35 percent of the owners of the real property abutting on the streets named in the petition as the location of the local improvement; and when there has been no such petition, the resolution may be adopted only by vote of four -fifths of all members of the council. The effective date of a resolution ordering the local improvement must be at least 30 days after adoption. Within five days after adoption of the resolution, a summary of the resolution must be mailed to the affected owners. If more than 50 percent of the affected owners sign written objections regarding the resolution, and file such objections with the city clerk prior to the effective date of the resolution, the resolution does not become effective and the local improvement is not ordered. Any objections filed under Section 8.02, Subdivision 2 will not constitute objections under this Subdivision 3. 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 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. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Minnesota Statues, 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. Crash Course In simpler terms: Either the City Council or citizens initiate an improvement project At the Council's discretion, a feasibility study is ordered 11 An improvement (public) hearing is scheduled; notice is mailed to affected property owners and published in newspaper If more than 50% of affected property owners file a written letter of objection either before or at the hearing, a special meeting is scheduled no sooner than 45 days later. At this special meeting, property owners and city staff sit down to take additional testimony, hear concerns, work out differences and revise project, if necessary. Previous objections become void. Council has up to six months to approve or decline project, which may be revised If approved, within 5 days, a summary of resolution is mailed to affected property owners Property owners have 30 days to file written objection (either letter or petition) If more than 50% of affected property owners object, they may veto the project. It does not go forward. If no objections or not enough objections, Council orders the project and process moves into the special assessment process Task Force Observations during the Conduct of its Activities • Communication and Education Good government requires an informed citizenry. It is recommended that the city expand its communications efforts with citizens when specific reconstruction and public improvement projects involving assessments are proposed. • Information As noted in an earlier survey and public comment received by the Task Force, an obstacle in gaining citizen approval of a City Charter change to deal with street reconstruction was information. An aggressive effort will be required to inform the citizenry of the issue. • Cooperation Opinions were expressed that there needs to be greater cooperative efforts among members of the Council, administration, Charter Commission and community when issues such as street reconstruction and public improvement are considered. • Waiting Period Rejection of a project does not absolve the city from dealing with it. It just postpones the inevitable. If rejected by the 50 percent provision in the recommended charter amendment, there should be policy defining when a road project can be brought up for review again. Our suggestion is 3 -5 years 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 to take advantage of a project's current feasibility study unless safety, environmental or legal issues are raised that would necessitate earlier consideration. Legislative and public policy could also affect the length of the waiting period. • Road Reconstruction Fund In the event that the recommended amendment is not approved, the City Council may have to address the need to establish a reserve fund dedicated to road reconstruction paid for by increasing property taxes. This is not the preferred alternative as it is not the most cost - effective approach however it might be necessary. Delaying a road reconstruction project is not a responsible option as the problem only compounds so the Council must exercise due diligence to avoid a crisis situation. Final Comments We appreciate the opportunity to review this issue and make comment. The overriding message —it's time for a change. The amendment we propose is in the best interest of the city. 13 APPENDIX A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF LINO LAKES ITEM 80 RESOLUTION NO. 07-30 RESOLUTION APPOINTING VISIONING COMMITTEE TO STUDY CITY CHARTER. Whereas, sixty percent of the respondents in the Lino Lakes quality of life survey conducted in 2006 favored changing the city charter so that the City Council can plan for and fund (budget) street construction and maintenance in a responsible manner, and Whereas, the Spotlight on 2030 Vision Plan identifies as a goal that the city ensure that local streets are maintained (or reconstructed to) an acceptable level and recommends that a citizen's group or task force be formed to study the existing charter and consider the need for amendment to accomplish this goal; and Whereas, the 2030 Visioning group is representative of the general citizenry of Lino Lakes and has volunteered to form a citizen task force from its members; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Lino Lakes hereby appoints the 2030 visioning group to form a task force through the selection of a group of its citizen members that will further study the issue of the city charter as it relates to road reconstruction and report back to the City Council and the Lino Lakes Charter Commission by June 1, 2007. Passed by the Lino Lakes City Council this 12th day of February, 2007. John J. Bergeson, Mayor ATTEST: Julie Bartell, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. APPENDIX B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • TICOA faired during 2004in tornpletein overalipaviement manageinentanalysisincludinEg eveiu-Ann dffne =dike nfine zurrantstruelsand - Tne cmis to inamliind necumstrist termin Diner ID mane useful fife tifinmetnr-tmerns - The Dutzernesrds ftvenmniMatmgem-mille,iert rPEIT?") frTh sr-,o, sprinpsted •Pairenient Managenten1 Report ,Fliiancing Plan linanepola mintights Citizens' CharterRej TasiiEnrce Presenivr: miekrinvisi..1.1,Ex=uttveviaplesitant 1 Puetic Isom ...Is a Sp: ingsted Pt-lipase • -.,:- • - - .... 1 • 'of MIR Flnanditig Plan 1 DdermirL.---ainanninglian -bit &sustainable pv.--Ifelang= tit I ,Iklicca.ite costufliv...114Rlinztirand .w.ifraii.inanrer 1 ",Spie=id - - - evailiyall *Eco,'Et.rs , 1 - SpecifcmstsIn mrizielpropertylpanefs • - ]SpmailiszsEti oil If* -usage - . ' .,.i. iti.frttnor-Am.tev;srum-infrnancelieflAR :1 Mithnizeisam.r..gy _ Edema' tasTria' itjzources VonaLeffr utromtoRDTCAypmperlytum Ei Sorinorted 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R s t . i , Hi:Gttig Witt d arrmrnr� AssateVimvarreses Sources i 3'NS�IC�Q 7tE. •11.1_3 aiRuflhi I, t -r , i,l $ ci air. Sartc Avg-,m. i Ei SRrinpcted • —. r— .4a$ . 5R 1nps% 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 R s t . i , Hi:Gttig Witt AssateVimvarreses i 3'NS�IC�Q 7tE. •11.1_3 air. Sartc Avg-,m. i Ei SRrinpcted 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Public Sod. sdseen 5pringcied 3 Recur= endabonsAs sunsed The Following • -Anna s PMR Recommended financing Solirres �. ReconstrucfianPnrfionof•Pb1R- - GeneraIObigation mpiovemartt Bonds - General ObTgalon S't r-StR on Bonds - 5iomr'U',ratrbfility - 7axinaerTntr=mandng - 2Vionidpa7. Slate Aid - Cost skatin -m Amolm County - ,5 'and Federal Brants _ _ $4,077,038 $4,1111;DDD $3,500,000 - 3,i30D-0DD 177,03.S >ue�_ �eanr non,ms ' E-1- swim's-tad Public Sod. sdseen 5pringcied 3 Recur= endabonsAs sunsed The Following • -Anna s PMR Tots] Funding :Sources 2005 -2014 Maintenance-and Reconsi c£on Propartytazesiormainterrance Sturm '%%tarlJfi ay GAD. improvement Bond= Printps? repaid from Special Assmerrts Plindoal isoo l orn piopaii9- tim lavy r mall $4,077,038 $4,1111;DDD $3,500,000 - 3,i30D-0DD 177,03.S ..,:,.. "xasr es— , a 2 SprlppSteO Public Sod. sdseen 5pringcied 3 Recur= endabonsAs sunsed The Following • -Anna s PMR propedylax ;rminus anmc aifiw iseai afingandtath j Tlagny ap=xiatrasss. imerifirgpmperaes2tt %orfne ,Costsi3i'rama ucijrn,rIDJeA; • Tie ,Ciyastabistrmasn,tnrwai 'srisiiyio_payioriiwwmrm ma-Mr related costs d remns_ truinn .urt jecess {not b1sbed as o; 3- 2g-fl7 rum*: Sspw Oxman S E Sprrngsted Public Sod. sdseen 5pringcied 3 3zrem1 m—mass zncmc assima ^moo ��'- " "d5e*:R -�� c.•.3.:7Mt 'tip?` -7 �_.x7@1Q= �ssrta91a1Ga.3mt�w Pudic Scao-- Mrimn • Sprinpstet 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I -uv =_ t` t - ae..:� he 8c. yi a= x •�.'-..'^ -� •,--&,_r._____ �- -, -, YIimeeKb.i ^11- 414_114.at2a .D....r ti— `IVIdiR[inY ri "°d ~ `"'s A"^`@` d P Sortnpcted �••�.z... ._ P.anE S.avr an.<.r =. v 2 SprtnOSteC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I -uv =_ t` t - ae..:� he 8c. yi a= x •,--&,_r._____ �- -, -, YIimeeKb.i ^11- 414_114.at2a .D....r ti— `IVIdiR[inY ri "°d ~ `"'s A"^`@` d P Sortnpcted 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PubP_ Amur. Sprinpsted 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 `4entn .. a�ar,re c use Et ey nran • brinaltilltimgelifiTptr,ficit • wilij° -rECu t intr f.teis. D lBi a t;paints — -y 'titri £3 rO9 SrriXEIS%L'r1BSIf3tttlSS.2TE :a = :Pri l7iAl D 1iIg HR;°:I78 -ray , ,— Wmu. iocor Ao.:en =1 a- Spring tet 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5Y ....— ;'3*a— a a. '".. -gat -- - ate. -: " +hwoomirL■alrfrtl!! - r- 7wdY••L..eA..►wib! fear Sent. A&man a E Soringeted 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 G" M cIUSions The PM, if implemented •: 11,t100;1300 averff nxt 10yms, .afro In TO#, • WSt&lathy Drive SZs a7O ir21T— S?750Ai7Dm2011S -improve fiheflverali condioon of streets -inane - ?sedum ouerafing msfandTruitt I billy =osu The fmancing plan recommended pravidem.wideiy used municipal grinding pra=fices forimpiementing PMR -Sustsiriabe overine long t rm onlyii•refemndums are soMessin t4' P.'= Smarr ...MI a a Sprinnstetl 7 APPENDIX C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT POLICIES TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PURPOSE 1 II. ESTABLISHMENT OF RATING SYSTEM 1 III. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES 1 A. Street Reconstruction B. Street Maintenance IV. PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA 2 V. FINANCING 2 VI. STORM WATER UTILITY 3 VII. ASSESSMENTS 3 VIII. MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT RATE 5 IX. TERM OF ASSESSMENTS 5 X. INTEREST RATE ON ASSESSMENTS 6 XL CORNER LOTS 6 XII. IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOTS 6 XU. LOT WIDTH 6 XTV. COT .T.FCTOR STREET CREDITS 6 XV. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 6 XVI. MAINTENANCE OF STREETS 6 XVII. MUNICIPAL UTILITIES 7 XVIII. CITY STANDARD STREET DESIGN 8 XIX. SENIOR CITIZEN/DISABILITY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERRALS 8 Pavement Management Policy 04/10/07 I. PURPOSE The Pavement Management Program (PMP) sets forth a system for the optimal maintenance of streets to extend their useful life and the reconstruction of streets, which have exceeded their useful life, and establishes a funding strategy to maximize available resources to carry the maintenance and reconstruction activities. The Pavement Management Program Policies will guide the timing and type of maintenance actions and reconstruction activities and the financing of activities. These policies will preserve the City's asset of streets, provide for the safe and efficient travel of its citizens, retain property values, keep the City attractive and desirable, and minimize costs to the property owners and taxpayers of the City. II. ESTABLISHMENT OF RATING SYSTEM A. Background. In 2004, the City and TKCDA investigated and evaluated every block of City pavement to establish its condition based upon what defects each block contained. City records were investigated to obtain knowledge of how old each block is and what maintenance has occurred throughout its history. This information was then entered into a nationally accepted computer program that identifies and analyzes all defects in each block of road and records it together with all relevant information concerning that block to determine the capable condition of the street. B. Index. The program rates the streets by using an Overall Condition Index (OCI) having a 1 -100 scare witfi too being a perfect new sheet. It t3ien projects the OCI of a segment and gives budget- dependent maintenance protocols for a given time period. It is the City's goal to maintain an overall OCI rating of 70. C. Rating Procedure. Each City street shall be rated every four years by the public workg/engineering staff. This will be accomplished by reviewing 25% of the street mileage every year. M. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT CATEGORIES The pavement management categories considered for City streets will be as follows: A. Street Reconstruction (OCI 0-40. "Problem" category) Includes: Storm Sewer Grade Changes Subgrade Correction (Major/Minor) Install Concrete Curb and Gutter Pavement Management Policy 1 04/10/07 1 1 1 1 1 1 Recycle Existing Pavement Financing: Lot/Unit Assessment Commercial/Industrial = 50% of project cost up to maximum assessment rate Residential = 50% of project cost up to maximum assessment rate City contributes balance from General Fund, State Aid Funds, or other sources. B. Street Maintenance. ' 1. Overlay (OCI 40-70, "Marginal" category) Includes: Crack Filling Milling Surface ' Patching Pothole Subgrade and Base Correction Repair or Replace Concrete Curb and Gutters 1 1 '/2 Inch Bituminous Surface Overlay 1 1 1 Financing. City General Fund or other sources Sealcoat (OCI 70 -100, "Adequate" category) Includes: Pothole Filling Crack Filling Sealcoat Financing: City General Fund or other sources N. PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA The OCI rating shall serve as the base criteria for project selection. In addition to the OCI, streets shall be evaluated according to Average Daily Traffic (ADT), Stormwater Management, Public Utilities and project priority groupings to achieve economies of scale. The City Engineer shall annually prepare a five year Street Maintenance & 1 Reconstruction Plan based on these criteria for review and approval by the City Council. V. FINANCING 1 The components of the Pavement Management Program (PMP) will be financed as follows: 1 A. Maintenance (Sealcoating and Overlays) — The City will levy a property tax each year to pay for annual maintenance costs as outlined in the PMP. 1 B. Local Street Reconstruction — The City will use: 1 Pavement Management Policy 2 05 /09/05 1. General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds authorized under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 475 for reconstruction projects where the existing street width is adequate and/or where no additional improvements, such as curb and gutter, are needed_ General Obligation Improvement Bonds authorized under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 for reconstruction projects where the existing street width is not adequate and/or where additional improvements, such as curb and gutter, are needed and at least 20% of the project cost is to be assessed. General Obligation Bonds authorized under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 475 for reconstruction projects where the existing street width is not adequate and/or where additional improvements, such as curb and gutter, are needed and less than 20% of the project cost will be assessed. Street reconstruction projects financed through these means will be funded from special assessments to benefited properties, proceeds from the storm water utility, and city tax levies and other sources. C. Municipal State Aid Streets. 1. MSA funds or bonds will be used to finance reconstruction of streets designated as part of the City's MSA system. 2. Properties benefiting from these projects will specially assessed according to the same formula used for benefited properties on local streets. Other financing sources, inc u mg but not limited to, proceeds from the storm water utility and city tax levies may also be used. VI. STORM WATER UTILTY The City Council shall establish and maintain a storm water utility as authorized under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 444, for the purpose of financing those costs of the PMP related to storm water improvements, and for maintaining the storm water management system_ VIL ASSESSMENTS A. The following is the general Street Reconstruction Policy for special assessments to benefiting property. 1. It is the policy of the City to special assess abutting benefiting property for street reconstruction costs, but not in excess of the special benefit to the Pavement Management Policy 3 05/09/05 1 1 1 1 3. Assessments shall not exceed any of the following: property. This policy applies to all streets that are the responsibility of the City. 2. The maximum assessment rate for the reconstruction of previously paved streets shall be determined according to Section VI of this policy. 1 4. Project cost includes both direct construction costs, includin g land (a) (b) (c) the special benefit to the property being assessed; the total project cost. the maximum assessment rate. acquisition, and all indirect costs such as engineering, legal, fiscal and 1 administration. B. Method of Assessment The Ci ty Council, shall assess street improvements on the basis of a Lot/Unit 1 assessment. The Lot/Unit assessment shall be calculated as follows: 1. Rural, Single Family, Two Family Residential Districts. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (a) One half of the total cost of the improvements shall be divided by the total front footage for the improvement. The quotient of this shall be the Calculated Assessment Rate. (b) The Calculated Assessment Rate shall be compared to the Maximum Assessment Rate, as provided for under this policy and the lesser of the two shall be the Assessment Rate. (c) The Assessment Rate shall be multiplied by the minimum required lot width of the respective zoning district that applies. The product of this shall be the Lot/Unit Assessment (d) Exceptions. Where parcels in Rural Zoning Districts have less than the minimum required lot width they shall be evaluated under the lot width requirements of the most applicable single family district. ii. Where parcels within zoning districts have less than the minimum required lot width of the respective district the Lot/Unit Assessment shall be calculated by multiplying the individual lot width by the Assessment Rate. Pavement Management Policy 4 05 /09/05 2. Medium & High Density Residential, Commercial and Industrial Districts (a) One half of the total cost of the improvements shall be divided by the total front footage for the improvement, as determined under this policy. The quotient of this shall be the Calculated Assessment Rate. (b) (c) The Calculated Assessment Rate shall be compared to the Maximum Assessment Rate, as provided for under this policy and the lesser of the two shall be the Assessment Rate. The Assessment Rate shall be multiplied by the minimum required lot width of the respective zoning district that applies. The product of this shall be the Lot/Unit Assessment. (d) Parcels shall be converted into an equivalent number of parcel units by dividing the area of the parcel by the minimum lot area of the respective zoning district. The quotient of this shall be the Unit Assessment Multiplier. (e) The Lot/Unit Assessment shall be multiplied by the Unit Assessment Multiplier. The product of this shall be the assessment amount. 3. When an assessable parcel from an improvement project is subdividable under City Code, the City will assign the maximum number of Lots/Units to the parcel that would result from a future subdivision under the current City Code. 4. Nothing herein shall preclude the City Council from assessing 100% of a project cost upon receipt of a Petition and Waiver of Irregularity and Appeal from 100% of the property owners benefiting from the project. VIII. MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT RATE The base year for the street assessment under the Pavement Management Program will be 2005. The maximum assessment rate shall be $77.00 per front footage. This rate shall be adjusted annually (January 1) using the National Engineering News Record (ENR) cost index. IX. TERM OF ASSESSMENTS Project costs assessed under this policy will be collected over a 15 year period.. Pavement Management Policy 5 05/09/05 X. INTEREST RATE ON ASSESSMENTS An interest rate of assessments shall be charged at 2% over the rate of bonds issued to finance the project. The minimum interest rate shall be 7% per annum. XI. CORNER LOTS Corner lots in Single Family, Two Family and Medium Density Districts where single - family homes, two- family homes, townhomes, or condominiums are - built, will be a part of the improvement and assessment process if the driveway for the subject comer lot is on the improvement street. Such lot shall be assessed on a unit basis the same as interior lots. However, regardless of driveway location, where a lot is subdividable and such subdivision fronts the improvement street, the parcel shall be assessed for all units in excess of the original lot. KU. IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOTS Irregularly shaped lots will be considered on an individual basis. Such lots will be measured and assessed on their average width with the lot width at the front setback line taken into consideration. XIII. LOT WIDTH Lot width is generally considered the lot width at the front setback line, with the exception of irregularly shaped lots. XIV. COLLECTOR STREET CREDITS All residential properties, with the exception of properties with a density of greater than 6 units /acre, will only be assessed for a city standard street as defined in Section XVIII., of this policy. Residential properties with greater than 6 units per acre density and commercial/industrial properties will be assessed toward the entire cost of street improvement as outlined in these policies. XV. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The Street Maintenance and Reconstruction Plan, established per Section IV, shall be part of the City's Capital Improvement Program which is prepared during the budgeting process. XVI. MAINTENANCE OF STREETS A. General Maintenance. An important element of a good street Pavement Management Plan Program is to provide good maintenance practices. Streets should be swept as early as possible in the spring to help dry the streets; cracks should be filled as early as possible in the year to prevent moisture into the sub- Pavement Management Policy 6 05/09/05 base; filling of potholes should be made as necessary to prevent travel hazards and damage to sub -base; and special maintenance shall be consistently performed to protect and prolong the life of the pavement. The City Council needs to provide the necessary funding in the budget to perform the necessary maintenance work in a timely and professional manner. B. Special Maintenance. Special maintenance shall be include timely seal coating and bituminous overlays on streets as follows: C. Minor Maintenance. (Under review by the LMC Insurance Trust Attorney) 1. Public Works will perform minor maintenance on the streets to address safety issues that may occur. When a street is scheduled for reconstruction, only pothole filling or other safety measures will occur on that road. It is not cost effective for the City to expend funds on temporary street maintenance on a road that has deteriorated to the point of rewiring reconstruction 2. In such cases the City, where conditions warrant, may post signs cautioning the public of poor street surface conditions and recommending reduced speed. XV L MUNICIPAL UTILITIES. A. In instances where street reconstruction is proposed within areas not currently serviced by municipal sanitary sewer and/or water, the City shall provide for the extension of these services in conjunction with the improvement project subject to the following. 1. Municipal sanitary sewer and water are available to service the project are& 2. The City's Comprehensive Plan guides the area for sewered development. Pavement Management Policy 7 05/09/05 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Age of Street Maintenance Action 5 — 7 years First sealcoating 10 — 14 years Second sealcoating 15 — 21 years Third sealcoating 20 — 28 years First overlay 25 — 35 years First sealcoating 30 — 42 years Second sealcoating 35 — 49 years Second overlay 40 — 56 years First sealcoating 47 — 65 years Road reconstruction C. Minor Maintenance. (Under review by the LMC Insurance Trust Attorney) 1. Public Works will perform minor maintenance on the streets to address safety issues that may occur. When a street is scheduled for reconstruction, only pothole filling or other safety measures will occur on that road. It is not cost effective for the City to expend funds on temporary street maintenance on a road that has deteriorated to the point of rewiring reconstruction 2. In such cases the City, where conditions warrant, may post signs cautioning the public of poor street surface conditions and recommending reduced speed. XV L MUNICIPAL UTILITIES. A. In instances where street reconstruction is proposed within areas not currently serviced by municipal sanitary sewer and/or water, the City shall provide for the extension of these services in conjunction with the improvement project subject to the following. 1. Municipal sanitary sewer and water are available to service the project are& 2. The City's Comprehensive Plan guides the area for sewered development. Pavement Management Policy 7 05/09/05 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3. With the exception of trunk improvements (i.e., oversizing or overdepth) sanitary sewer and water main extension shall be 100% assessed to benefited properties provided that such assessments do not exceed the following: (a) the special benefit to the property being assessed; (b) the total project cost. 4 All sanitary sewer and water main improvements proposed to be paid for by special assessments shall be subject to the provisions and procedures of Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429 and City Charter, Chapter 8. XVIII. CITY STANDARD STREET DESIGN A. The City Standard Street Design shall be 32 feet from back of curb to back of curb . 1. Exception. In cases were the existing street proposed for reconstruction is 29 feet wide or less, and not a Municipal State Aid Road, County, or other designated collector road, the street shall be reconstructed to a maximum width of 29 feet from back of curb to back of curb. All such streets constructed to such width shall be limited to parking on one side and be signed accordingly. B. The pavement section shall consist of a minimum 7 -ton design, which consists of 1 -1/2 inches of bituminous wearing course, 2 inches of bituminous base course, and 8 inches of Class 5 aggregate base course. XIX. SENIOR CITIZEN/DISABILITY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEkthRRALS. Owners of homestead property aged 65 or older, or who are retired by virtue of permanent and total disability may, if eligible, apply for deferral of special assessments in accordance with Ordinance 07 -90. Pavement Management Policy 8 05/09/05 APPENDIX D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Projected Tax Impact on $200,000 residential homestead `Tax impact does not take into account the Market Value Homestead Credit. Projected Tax Impact on $250,000 residential ho Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (5% Growth) Impact Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (7.5% Growth) Impact Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (10% Growth) Impact 2005 L529% $ 30.58 1.529% $ 30.58 L529% S 30.58 2006 2.140% $ 42.79 2.090% $ 41.80 2.042% $ 40.85 2007 2.605% $ 52.09 2.485% $ 49.70 2.373% $ 47.47 2008 3.429% $ 68.57 3.195% $ 63.90 2.982% $ 59.64 2009 4.240% $ 84.79 3.859% $ 77.18 3_520% $ 7039 2010 5.107% $ 102.13 4.540% $ 90.79 4.047% $ 80.94 2011 5.393% $ 107.86 4.683% $ 93.66 4.080% $ 81.59 2012 5.656% $ 113.13 4.797% $ 95.95 4.084% $ 81.68 2013 5.901% $ 118.02 4.889% $ 97.77 4.067% S 8135 2014 6.140% $ 122.79 4.968% $ 99.36 4.039% $ 80.79 `Tax impact does not take into account the Market Value Homestead Credit. Projected Tax Impact on $250,000 residential ho `Tax impact does not take into account the Market Value Homestead Credit. Projected Tax Impact on $300,000 residen Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (5% Growth) Impact Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (7.5% Growth) Impact Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (10% Growth) Impact 2005 1.529% $ 38.23 1.529% $ 38.23 1.529% $ 38.23 2006 2.140% $ 53.49 2.090% $ 5225 2.042% $ 51.06 2007 2.605% $ 65.12 2.485% $ 62.13 2.373% $ 59.33 2008 3.429% $ 85.71 3.195% $ 79.87 2.982% $ 74.55 2009 4240% $ 105.99 3.859% $ 96.47 3_520% $ 87.99 2010 5A07% $ 127.66 4340% $ 113.49 4.047% S 101.17 2011 5.393% $ 134.82 4.683% $ 117.07 4.080% $ 101.99 2012 5.656% $ 141.41 4.797% $ 119.93 4.084% $ 102.10 2013 5.901% $ 147.53 4.889% $ 12221 4.067% $ 101.68 2014 6.140% $ 153.49 4.968% $ 124.20 4.039% $ 100.99 `Tax impact does not take into account the Market Value Homestead Credit. Projected Tax Impact on $300,000 residen `Tax impact does not take into account the Market Value Homestead Credit. Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (5% Growth) Impact Projected Tax Rate ImpactAnnual (7.5% Growth) Impact Projected Tax Rate ImpactAmual (10% Growth) Impact 2005 1.529% $ 45.88 1.529% $ 45.88 1.529% $ 45.88 2006 2.140% $ 64.19 2.090% $ 62.69 2.042% $ 61.27 2007 2.605% $ 78.14 2.485% $ 74.55 2.373% S 71.20 2008 3.429% $ 102.86 3.195% $ 95.85 2.982% $ 89.46 2009 4240% $ 127.19 3.859% $ 115.76 3.520% $ 105.59 2010 5.107% $ 153.20 4.540% $ 136.19 4.047% $ 121.40 2011 5393% $ 161.79 4.683% $ 140.49 4.080% $ 122.39 2012 5.656% $ 169.69 4.797% $ 14192 4.084% $ 122.53 2013 5.901% $ 177.03 4.889% $ 146.66 4.067% $ 122.02 2014 6.140% $ 184.19 4.968% $ 149.04 4.039% $ 121.18 `Tax impact does not take into account the Market Value Homestead Credit. 61.17 81.69 94.93 11928 140.79 161.87 163.18 16337 Projected Tax Impact on 5350,000 residential homestead `Tax impact does not take into account the Market Vaiue Homestead Credit 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20121 -tT1_I 2014 Projected Tax Impact on 5400,000 residential homestead Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (5% Growth) Impact 1.529% $ 2140% 5 2.605% $ 3.429% $ 4240% $ 5.107% 5 5.393% $ 5.656% 5 61.17 85.58 104.19 137.14 169.58 20426 215.72 226.25 5.901% 5 236.05 6.140% $ 245.59 Projected Tax Rate hnpactAnnual (75% Growth) Impact L529% $ 2.090% 5 2.485% $ 3.195% $ 3.859% 5 4.540% $ 4.683% $ 4.797% $ 61.17 83.59 99.40 127.79 154.35 181.59 187.32 191.89 4.889% $ 4.968% $ 195.54 198.72 Projected Tax Rate ImpactAnnual (10% Growth) Impact 1.529% 5 2.042% 5 2373% $ 2.982% 5 3.520% $ 4.047% $ 4.080% 5 4.084% $ 4.067% 5 4.039% $ 1 62.69 161.58 `Tax impact does not take into account the Market Value Homestead Credit Projected Tax Impact on 5500,000 residential homestead Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (5% Growth) Impact Projected Tax Rate lmpactAnnual. (7.5% Growth) Impact Projected Tax Rate ImpactAnnual (10% Growth) Impact 2005 1.529% $ 53.52 1.529% $ 53.52 1.529% $ 53.52 2006 2.140% $ 74.89 2.090% $ 73.14 2.042% $ 71.48 2007 2.605% $ 91.17 2.485% $ 86.98 2373% $ 83.07 2008 3.429% $ 120.00 3.195% $ 111.82 2.982% $ 10437 2009 4.240% 5 14839 3.859% 5 135.06 3520% $ 123.19 2010 5107% 5 178.73 4.540% 5 158.89 4.047% $ 141.64 2011 5393% 5 188.75 4.683% 5 163.90 4.080% 5 142.78 2012 5.656% 5 197.97 4.797% $ 167.91 4.084% 5 142.95 2013 5.901% 5 206.54 4.889% $ 171.10 4.067% 5 14236 2014 6.140% 5 214.89 4.968% 5 173.88 4.039% 5 14138 `Tax impact does not take into account the Market Vaiue Homestead Credit 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20121 -tT1_I 2014 Projected Tax Impact on 5400,000 residential homestead Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (5% Growth) Impact 1.529% $ 2140% 5 2.605% $ 3.429% $ 4240% $ 5.107% 5 5.393% $ 5.656% 5 61.17 85.58 104.19 137.14 169.58 20426 215.72 226.25 5.901% 5 236.05 6.140% $ 245.59 Projected Tax Rate hnpactAnnual (75% Growth) Impact L529% $ 2.090% 5 2.485% $ 3.195% $ 3.859% 5 4.540% $ 4.683% $ 4.797% $ 61.17 83.59 99.40 127.79 154.35 181.59 187.32 191.89 4.889% $ 4.968% $ 195.54 198.72 Projected Tax Rate ImpactAnnual (10% Growth) Impact 1.529% 5 2.042% 5 2373% $ 2.982% 5 3.520% $ 4.047% $ 4.080% 5 4.084% $ 4.067% 5 4.039% $ 1 62.69 161.58 `Tax impact does not take into account the Market Value Homestead Credit Projected Tax Impact on 5500,000 residential homestead `Tax impact does not take into account the Market Value Homestead Credit 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Projected Tax Rate Impact Annual (5% Growth) Impact Projected Tag Rate ImpactA.nnual (75% Growth) Impact Projected Tax Rate ImpactAnnual (10% Growth) Impact 2005 1329% 5 76.46 1.529% 5 76.46 1.529% 5 76.46 2006 2.140% $ 106.98 2.090% 5 104.49 2.042% 5 102.12 2007 2.605% 5 130.24 2.485% $ 124.25 2373% 5 118.67 2008 3.429% 5 171.43 3.195% 5 159.74 2.982% 5 149.10 2009 4.240% 5 211.98 3_859% 5 192..94 3.520% 5 175.99 2010 5.107% 5 25533 4340% 5 226.99 4.047% 5 20234 2011 5393% $ 269.65 4.683% 5 234.14 4.080% 5 203.98 2012 5.656% $ 282.81 4.797% 5 239.86 4.084% 5 20421 2013 5.901% 5 295.06 4.889% $ 244.43 4.067% 5 203.37 2014 6.140% $ 306.99 4.968% $ 248.40 4.039% 5 201.97 `Tax impact does not take into account the Market Value Homestead Credit 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX E Leese of Minnesota Gives 145 University Avenue West, St Paul, MN 55103 -2044 (651) 7k1 -1200 • (800) 925 -1122 Fax (651) 281 -1299 • TDD: (651) 281 -1290 www.imnc.org NIay 10, 2007 Citizen Task Force City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Pkwy Lino Lakes, MN 55014 -1182 Re: Uniqueness of the special assessments referendum in Lino Lakes' charter Dear Citizen Task Force; Following my visit to Lino Lakes to present information on charters, i received a question from a member of the Citizen Task Force, as well as the administrator, Gordon Heitke. The question was, do any other charter cities in Minnesota have a siminar provision requiring a referendum on special assessments as found in the Lino I ekes Chaster. The answer is that no other charter city in Minnesota has a charter provision requiring a referendum on special assessments. Section 8.04, subdivision 2 of the Lino T fkcts charter reads, in part [Vjhen less than ow hundred (100%) pest of the estimated cost of the proposed improvement is to be paid for by special assessments, connection charges, or any outside funding source other than the City general fund, the Council shaIl within one hundred twenty (120) days after the conclusion of the public heating submit the proposed local improvement and its assessment formula to the voters of the city.... If a majority of those voting on said improvement and associated assessment formula are opposed, the Council sh1l not proceed with the local improvement as proposed. (emphasis added.) Comparing this charter provision with the corresponding special assessment and local improvement provisions of other charter cities, 1 have found no other city which has a similar .mandatory referendum in its charter. The closest charter to Lino Lakes in this respect is found in Mounds View. In Mounds View, the charter outlines a similar procedure for couticd to follow, yet its analogous subdivision 2 reads, in [Willem less than 100 percent of the estimated cost of a proposed local improvement is to be paid for by special ass, within the sixty day period after a public hearing has been held on the proposed improvement, a pin may be flied with Council, signed by a majority of the number of electors who voted for Mayor in the iRst regular election, protesting against AFi EQUAL OPPORTU€i1TY /AFF{RREATIVE ACTi9M EMPIGY -ER 1 1 1 1 1 *Limo Lakes Citizen Task Force* Page 2 May 9, 2007 either the improves or the assessment formula or both. In this event, the Council shall not proceed with the improvement, as proposed. Therefore, while ?viols View's charter allows a proposed improvement to be stopped by the possibility of a lion, Lino Lakes is imiquelyrequired. to submit the proposal to an election. *** 1 Since I read through the load improvement charter p rovisionLs for 107 cities, I wanted to share that I found. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 The amount of space in charters dedicated to local improvements and special am-smarts varies quite a bit. Many charters have little more than two brief paragraphs. The entire local improvement provision in the charter for Chatfield is "As per sib law" At the same tithe, Brainerd's charter has 12 pages on local improvements and spacial ate, and South St Paul has in incredible 58 pages in their charter devoted to the topic. However, at least 85% of all charters appear similar to Chapter 8 of the Gaylord city charter. For your convenience, 1 have included a copy of that section of Gaylord's chatter with this letter. The following are trends and variations I have seen among those cities with provisions like Gaylord's. • In virtually all of these charters, the city is given blanket power to carry out any and all improvements not prohibited by law ("The council shall have the power to make any and dew special assessments..."). • Many charters contain- no more than two sections similar to sections 71 and 72 in the example. However, the overwhethning majority contain sections similar to sections 71 throes 74 in the example. • In some instances, the council is compelled by the charter to create -a comprehensive ordinance which lays out the improvement/assessment process, and in some instances the city can create a comprehensive ordinance if they like. • In many charters, any resulting "comprehensive ordinance" is said to supersede state law for the city.' But in as many cases, the council has discretion as to whether they follow the ordinance or Ivrtnnesota Statutes. Some charters are silent on that point2 • Some charters refer to and adopt only those parts of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 that address hearings and notice, and provide the test of the process for the city in charter or .. • a III+. i:i :ti * 1* Regardless, to be valid, any such comprehensive ordinance must meet some minimum requirements regarding notice and time limits outlined in Minn. Stat. § 429.021, subd. 3. 2 Where the charter is silent an this point, the city may pro Berl under either the statutes or its ordinance (Minn. Stat. § 429.111). *Lino Lakes Citizen Task Force* Page 3 May 9, 2007 ordinance. Often, as in the case of Gaylord, the charter provides state law ( "applicable law") is to be used only in absence of a comprehensive ordinance. An important qualification to this information is that a charter city could have an ordinance requiring a referendum on a public improvement/special assessment. However, I did not consult the ordinances of any charter city. If a charter city had such an ordinance, and it was found unmanageable, the ordinance would most likely be easier to change than a similar charter provision. But, I must stress that in charter cities where ordinances are formed or amended by initiative and referendum, its possible that a city could be just as stymied by ordinances as it could by charter provisions. We have not seen this, but it is theoretically possible. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Edward S. Cadman Research Attorney enc. cc: Gordon Heitke, Lino Lakes City Administrator 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX F street Keconstruction .eage 1 Gordon Heitke From: Smith, Chris [CSmith @imnc.orgj Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4 :16 PM To: Gordon Heitke Cc: Chamberlin, Tracie Subject: Street Reconstruction Attachments: Why Should You Have Street Maintenance Poiicies.pdf, What To include in a Street Maintenance Poficy.pdf TO: Gordon Heitke, Administrator, City of Lino Lakes FROM: Chris Smith, Risk Management Attorney, LMCIT CC: Tracie Chamberlin, Loss Control Manager, LMCIT DATE: March 28, 2007 RE: Street Reconstruction 1 1 1 1 This e-mail is to follow -up on our phone conversation last week. As I understand the issue, under the city's home rule charter, city must hold a referendum to do street reconstruction, if any city funds are to be used. In other words, unless the city specia assesses 100% of the cost against the property owners, the city must hold an election. As a practical matter, this charter provision has greatly limited the city's ability to do street reconstruction, as the ballot issue rarely receives public approval. In Fr of this fact, you were seeking information on what steps the city can take to help ensure that it does not get sued because city streets are in poor condition. The first step is to have a street maintenance policy or pavement management program which you said the city has. The city already rated the condition of all city streets and has developed criteria for street repairs and reconstruction. The most impo thing the city can do is to follow that policy. If the policy sets up unrealistic standards that the city cannot meet, then the city should amend its policy. Having a policy and following that policy will entitle the city to discretionary immunity for most claims I related to the condition of the city's streets. I have attached the following LMCIT memos which discuss these issues further What to include in a Street Maintenance Policy and Why Should You Have Street Maintenance Policies ?. «Why Should You Have Street Maintenance Poliicies_pdf» «What To Include in a Street Maintenance Policy.pdf» 1 If you have streets that are in need of reconstruction, then pursuant to your city's charter and your policy, the city should hold a referendum on the issue. How often must you hold an election? I suggest that this question should be answered by your stre maintenance policy (if it is not answered by your ciity's charter). My suggestion would be to hold an election once a year. Although the city could hold more frequent elections, there is also a significant cost factor to holding elections. The cost is an appropriate item for the council to consider when deciding how frequently to hold street referenda. As a side note, 1 think it would be appropriate for the city's Charter Commission to at least consider removing or amending the I referendum requirement for street reconstruction. As a practical matter, it really seems to limit the city's ability to reconstruct its streets, and in the long run may actually increase the costs to the city to maintains its streets. Simply trying to maintain the strE' for years may end up costing more than reconstructing the streets at an appropriate time. Although one might argue that the city can always assess 100% of the costs to the property owner, that presents another problem. The amount of any special assessment cannot exceed the benefit to the property. In other words, if you assess a property owner $10,000 for a new street, you need to show that the value of the property increased by at least $10,000. It is o hard, if not impossible, to show this increase in market value, and may be subject to expensive litigation. Thus, the city could bE stuck in a situation where it cannot legally assess the entire cost and cannot get public approval, effectively making street reconstruction impossible. Because street referenda usually fail in your city, it seems likely that some streets are likely to be in poor condition. That raises issue of what the city should do to wam of dangerous streets. Again, that question should be answered by your policy. It is probably not possible to wam of every condition. And if you tried to do so, a motorist might sue the city for failing to place a warning device. First, I suggest that a waming should be placed anywhere there is a hidden condition from the motorist. And second, the city based on available resources (Le., money and employees), should establish in their policy what streets or conditions will receive wamings, perhaps only the street rated as poor in you pavement management plan. in addition, the c may wish to pay special attention to areas involving complaints or accidents. The city's policy should have procedures for responding to notice of complaints and accidents. If the city ultimately decides that no action is necessary, the city should at le- 3/29/2007 JLLGGL ,LIGGVJ_L LI LEL UL/J1 document the situation to show that it followed its policy. I hope that the above information adequately answers your questions. If you need additional information, please let me know. Christopher Smith Risk Management Attorney League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (651) 281 -1269 smith ©Imnc.orq 3/29/2007 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �I APPENDIX G Citizen Task Force Members Kathi Gallup, Chair Peter T. Brown Judi Brunner Laura Carlson John Latcham Cheryl Sanchez Jamie Stem Cori M. Duffy, Chair Lino Lakes Charter Commission 6256 Hollow Lane Lino Lakes, MN 55014 RE: Proposed City Charter Amendment Dear Cori: DELIVERED VIA MESSENGER March 25, 2008 As you know, on July 9, 2007 the City Council approved the first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 8 of the City Charter (referred to as the "2007 Council Amendment"). The Council submitted that ordinance to the Charter Commission for review pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, sub& 5. Under the same statutory provision, the Charter Commission subsequently submitted a substitute charter amendment (referred to as the "Charter Commission Amendment") for Council consideration. The Council carefully reviewed the Charter Commission Amendment, and compared it with the existing City Charter, the 2007 Council Amendment, another amendment presented by an individual citizen, as well as Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. After this deliberation, the Council determined that the Charter Commission Amendment does not adequately address the City's current needs with respect to .the City Charter, and the 2007 Council Amendment could be improved_ Accordingly, the Council has determined to submit neither the 2007 Council Amendment nor the Charter Commission Amendment to the voters. Instead, on March 24, 2008 the Council approved the first reading of a new ordinance amending Chapter 8 of the City Charter, a copy of which is enclosed (the "2008 Council Amendment"). The 2008 Council Amendment is intended to supersede the 2007 Council Amendment, and the Council hereby submits the new amendment for review and comment by the Charter Commission in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, subd. 5. The only difference between the 2007 Council Amendment and the enclosed 2008 Council Amendment is that the latter repeals Section 8.07 of the existing City Charter. Section 8.07 currently establishes separate rules for the financing of improvements in three specified geographical areas of the City. The Council has determined that, in light of other proposed changes in Chapter 8 of the City Charter, the special provisions are no longer appropriate or necessary. Moreover, elimination of the special provisions will reduce the interest cost on City bonds issued to finance improvements located in whole or in part within the special areas (by permitting bonds for such improvements to be issued on a tax- exempt basis, as in the case �f moot City hands) The lower cost of City bonds will reduce the financial impact on property owners assessed for these improvements, and on taxpayers as a whole. 600 Town Center Parkway, Lino Lakes, Minnesota 35014-1182 Phone: 651 - 982 -2400 • Fax: 651- 982 -2499 The Council requests that the Charter Commission review the 2008 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 the 2008 Amendment. Sincerely, Enclosure: Ordinance No. 05 -08 1 n Reading: March 24, 2008 Publication: 2 "d Reading: Effective: Council Member moved for adoption of the following ordinance: CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDINANCE NO. 05 -08 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE LINO LAKES CITY CHARTER, REGARDING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS The City Council of the City of Lino Lakes does ordain: Section 1. That Chapter 8, Section 8.01, 8.02, 8.03, 8.04, 8.05 and 8.06 of the Lino Lakes City Charter be and are hereby repealed: Section 8.01. Power to Make Improvements and Levy Asseccmontc. interest. No sscccsmcnt shall exceed the benefits to the property. Section 8.02. Effective Charter Provisions, Except as Provided in- Section 8.07. Local improvements (the term "Iesal ent" shall mean a public 19) Section 8.03. Local Improvement Ordinances and Rcgul improvements can be acted upon, the Counoil shall- enact suitable Drdinance(s) goveming local improvements and special assessments. The ordinance(s) shall arcoocmont districts, public h..arings, appeals fFePn a collection of assessments, certifying of unpaid a -sec ments for collection by the proper County officer. Said the subject of local improvements and assoaments. After the anion of such contained in this Charter. Section 8.0'. Speeia1 Assessment Procedure. the beneftted property shad -be instituted by either, (1) a petition of at lgect twenty five affirmative vote of the majority of all of the Council, or, (2) a resolution adopted by a thereto, 3 copy of such resolution including estimate unit prices and estimated total notice, or any defects in the notice, shall not invalidate the proceedings. At such n afld oral statements, and hear any petitioners expected to offset the proposed improvement cost. A period of sixty (60) days shall elapse after the public h aring before any further action shall be taken by the Council, on the proposed improvement. If within such sixty (60) day period, in a petitioning filed with the Council, signed by a majority of the owners proposed to be aerssed for such improvement, or when the improvement has been petitioned for, -signed by 3 the Council. Subdivision 2. Regardless of the provisions of Subdivision 1 of this section, when co-s than one hundred (100 %) percent of the estimated cost of the proposed improvement is to be paid for by special assessments, connection charges, or any shall schedule a special election by which said improvement and its associated assoccmcnt formula can be submitted to the City's voters. If a majority of those voting shall not proceed with the local imorovomcnt as proposed. of any time between sixty (60) days and one (1) year after the conclusion of the public (1) time only. (1) year after tho public hearing on said improvement. Section 8.06. When under the pFovisioes of section 8 -01, Subdivision 1, an owners, such property owners may after the mailing of notice of a public hearing, petition to waive fifty (50) of the sixty (50) days waiting period. After such petition, the Section 2. That Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter be amended by adding thereto a new Section 8.01 to read as follows: Section 8.01. Local Improvements Defined; Charter Provisions Effective. Subdivision 1. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term "local improvements" means any public improvements financed in whole or in part from special assessments. Subdivision 2. For the purposes of any obiection 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 improvement, including all design, financing and related costs, and shall not exceed the benefit to the property determined in accordance with state law. Subdivision 4. Local improvements shall be carried out exclusively under the provisions of this Charter, except to the extent otherwise provided in Section 8.02. Section 3. That Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter be amended by adding thereto a new Section 8.02 to read as follows: Section 8.02. Local Improvement Procedure. Subdivision 1. Local improvements shall be carried out in accordance with state law. except as provided in this Section. Subdivision 2. If more than 50 percent of the owners of the real property abutting on the streets named in the mailed notice of the improvement hearing under Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.031, subdivision 1 sign written objections regarding the local improvements, and fife such objections with the city clerk prior to the improvement hearing or present such objections to the presiding officer at the hearing, then after the hearing the council shall schedule a special meeting to be held at least 45 days after the date of the hearing. At least 10 days prior to the date of the special meeting, the city shall publish notice of the special meeting and mail notice of the special meeting to all owners who received the initial notice under Section 429.031, subdivision 1. Such published and mailed notice shall include all the information provided in the initial mailed notice, along with a statement as to the number and percentage of affected owners who filed objections at or before the hearing. At the special meeting, the council shall hear additional testimony on behalf of any objecting property owners, and may consider further written or oral testimony from appropriate city officials and other witnesses, as to the nature of the local improvements, the advisability of proceeding with such local improvements, the proposed financing for such local improvements. any proposed amendments to the plans or financing for such local improvements, and the methodology used to calculate individual special assessments for such local improvements. Subdivision 3. A resolution ordering the local improvements (as such improvements may have been amended in response to the hearing or special meeting under Section 8.02, Subdivision 2) may be adopted at any time within six months after the date of the special meeting by vote of a majority of all members of the council when the local improvement has been petitioned for by not less than 35 percent of the owners of the real property abutting on the streets named in the petition as the location of the local improvement; and when there has been no such petition, the resolution may be adopted only by vote of four - fifths of all members of the council. The effective date of a resolution ordering the local improvement must be at least 30 days after adoption. Within five days after adoption of the resolution, a summary of the resolution must be mailed to the affected owners. If more than 50 percent of the affected owners sign written objections regarding the resolution. and file such objections with the city clerk prior to the effective date of the resolution, the resolution does not become effective and the local improvement is not ordered. Any objections filed under Section 8.02, Subdivision 2 will not constitute objections under this Subdivision 3. 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 apply to the subject local improvements. and all subseouent 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. 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 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 properly 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. subdivisions, the Council shall not vote on the same improvement within s period of ono Council that a sooner v oto is neccssary to preserve public peaco, hoeith, morals, safety or w °!faro. Section 4. That Chapter 8, Section 8.07, of the Lino Lakes City Charter is hereby repealed: Section 8.07. Local improvement; Special Provisions. Subdivision 1. Except as provided in Subdivision 3, i ki the geographic areas of ^pccial asco - -ment for the financing of those improvements must be conducted in Subdivision 2. Subdivision 1 applies #o land within three (3-) -geographic areas, _ / • AREA NO. 1 Trunk Highway 11'19 (Hodgson Road) and County State Aid Highway #23 Intersection (Lake Drive) All Government Lot 1, Section 30, T31, R22, PIN. 3D 31 22 210001 That part of Lots 11, 15, 16 and 17, Auditor's Subdivision Ne. 151-lying ✓outh and AREA NO. 2 Interstate 135E and County Ro3d 212 (Main Street) Interchange Northo.aot one quarter (1/4) of Section 21 That part of the southeast one qus#er (141) of Section 24 lying north of Cedar Street East one half (1 /2)- of the southwest one quarter (1/1) of Section 21 Et -o ne if (1/2) of the northwest one quarter (1/1) of Section 21 AREA NO. 3 Interstate 135W and Trunk Highway ft19 (Lake Drive) 1 ntern North one half (1/2) of the southwest one quarter (1/1) of Section 18 That part of the south one half (1/2) of the southwest one quarter (1/1) of Section Highway ft49 (Lake Drive) right of way right of way line 938.11 feet (y or ) ; thence southeasterly 672. 39 (4 or ) feet (111); thence south along said -east line 588.5 -(4 or ) feot -o the south line of quarter (111) of Section 8 southwest one quarter (114) of Section 8 The east 330 feet (y or ) of the northeast one quarter (1/1) of the couth..act one occupied residential unit existed on September 30, 1993, the owner /occupant of such unlece the owner, at his /her option, in the futura elects to connect to or ucc the improvements constructed by the City. Any notice. of hearing mailed to such single day that an owner occupied recidentiol unit no longer oxicts on the parcel of real Section 5. That this ordinance supersedes in all respects the proposed ordinance designated No. 07 -07, a first reading of which was approved July 9, 2007, and no second reading of which was subsequently approved by the Council. John Bergeson, Mayor Attest: Julianne Bartell, City Clerk Adopted by the Lino Lakes City Council this day of , 2008. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by Council Member and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: The following voted against same: Whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted.