Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 6, 2012 <br /> APPROVED <br /> 46 because it is constitutionally vague and impossible for the city to understand how it can <br /> 47 be applied. The state formula for a levy limit is complex and the limit itself has been <br /> 48 determined for each city by the state. The city shouldn't be put in a position where it <br /> 49 must guess how to calculate the limit and that in itself could expose the city to liability. <br /> 50 He noted also that the "2012 levy" is noted and it isn't clear if that is the year levied or <br /> 51 the year collected, leaving another question. Also there are problems in the details of the <br /> 52 amendment. There is language requiring that new levies for special districts or utilities be <br /> 53 included in the limit and that is not clear in how it would be implemented because of its <br /> 54 ambiguity and would seemingly not allow bonding for projects that is allowed under state <br /> 55 law. The tax cap amendment also includes language regarding net tax capacity but that <br /> 56 term is not clear. Mr. Bubul clarified that the Charter Commission does have the <br /> 57 authority to put forward an-amendment that includes a levy limit but there is a <br /> 58 responsibility to put forward amendments that are workable and constitutional. <br /> 59 <br /> 60 Mr. Bubul then reviewed the other amendment submitted by the Charter Commission <br /> 61 (relating to how the Charter-Commission is governed). He explained the three elements <br /> 62 of the amendment that contradict Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410 that governs charter <br /> 63 government. The Legislature can change that language and the authority granted by it but <br /> 64 that cannot be done by amendment to a city charter. City Attorney Langel has submitted <br /> 65 an opinion that is clearly explains why the amendment should not be-put on the ballot. <br /> 66 <br /> 67 Administrator Karlson noted that a resolution has been prepared by legal counsel that <br /> 68 rejects both of the amendments. The council concurred that they would be reviewing the <br /> 69 legal opinions, directing any questions to the city administrator and considering the <br /> 70 matter at the next council meeting. <br /> 71 <br /> 72 The council also reviewed Ordinance No. 05-12 that appears on the Council Agenda for <br /> 73 August 13,the council proposed charter amendment regarding financing for special <br /> 74 assessments. The amendment has been reviewed and rejected by the Charter <br /> 75 Commission. Mr. Bubul explained that-if the council wishes to continue with the <br /> 76 statutory process, it would approve a second reading as well as a resolution calling for a <br /> 77 special election and establishing ballot language. Ballot language has been drafted and is <br /> 78 lengthy because it attempts to explain clearly a somewhat complicated_question. The <br /> 79 mayor offered his explanation of the purpose of the amendment and suggested his support <br /> 80 for the amendment that he believes will be a fair process; the council has discussed it <br /> 81 thoroughly over the past months. <br /> 82 <br /> 83 4. Schedule date to review 2013 budget—The council concurred to schedule a <br /> 84 special work session for August 13,to begin upon adjournment of the regular council <br /> 85 meeting that evening. The mayor requested that staff provide recommendations to <br /> 86 address the impending budget gap. <br /> 87 <br /> 88 2. Request for Formalize Geocache Program in Lino Lakes Parks System — This <br /> 89 item was tabled for discussion at a future work session. <br /> 90 <br /> 2 <br />