Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION March 5, 2012 <br /> APPROVED <br /> 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES <br /> 2 MINUTES <br /> 3 <br /> 4 DATE : March 5,2012 <br /> 5 TIME STARTED : 5:30 p.m. <br /> 6 TIME ENDED : 8:45 p.m. <br /> 7 MEMBERS PRESENT : Council Member Stoesz, Rafferty, Roeser <br /> 8 and Mayor Reinert <br /> 9 MEMBERS ABSENT : Council Member O'Donnell <br /> 10 <br /> 11 <br /> 12 Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; Community Development <br /> 13 Director Michael Grochala; City Engineer Jason Wedel; Public Safety Director John <br /> 14 Swenson; Finance Director Al Rolek; City Planner Paul Bengtson; City Clerk Julie <br /> 15 Bartell <br /> 16 <br /> 17 1. Charter Amendment—Community Development Director Grochala noted that the <br /> 18 council has discussed and is reviewing an ordinance that proposes an amendment to <br /> 19 Chapter 8 of the City Charter. The amendment is based on the ordinance forwarded in <br /> 20 2007 by the citizen's task force. Different from the task force ordinance is the addition of <br /> 21 a reverse referendum that would provide residents with the opportunity to petition for a <br /> 22 referendum, an element that was included in the 2007 Charter Commission proposal. He <br /> 23 pointed out that the reverse referendum language is also similar to that included in state <br /> 24 statutes. <br /> 25 <br /> 26 Mr. Grochala reviewed the summary of the elements of the ordinance (as included in his <br /> 27 staff report). In summary,the ordinance: <br /> 28 - Allows for more interaction, as it calls for two hearings for impacted property <br /> 29 owners; <br /> 30 - Gives the council has a period where they can change the project based on public <br /> 31 input and a second hearing that allows a review of any changes; <br /> 32 - Allows affected owners to veto the project after it is ordered within 30 days and <br /> 33 with a 50%petition; <br /> 34 - Sets forth a process that forces the city to get it right; <br /> 35 - Removes language that exempts certain areas of the city from the charter <br /> 36 provisions that was originally meant for economic development but creates an <br /> 37 inequity. <br /> 38 <br /> 39 Mr. Grochala noted that the process of this ordinance presents a greater likelihood of <br /> 40 getting projects done but also allows for good public involvement. When asked about the <br /> 41 citizen communication element, Mr. Grochala explained the requirement of mailings to <br /> 42 property taxpayers. <br /> 43 <br /> 44 Council member comments included: <br /> 1 <br />