01-17-2008 Charter Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

narter, cnanges How to amend or not to amend; that is the question It's a contentious issue. Should the city be able to go ahead with road projects that many don't want to pay for? • Is the quality of roads more important than the squabbling over who benefits from and who pays what for a particular project? LINO LAKES ; — Road construction, or the lack. thereof, inthe city of Lino Lakes has been 'a pain in every resident's rear for several years::' It's a contentious issue. Should the city be able to go ahead with road projects that many don't want to pay for? Is the quality of roads more important than the. squabbling over who 'bene- fits from and who pays what for a particular project? Or do homeowners have the right to put the kibosh on projects they don't want to pay for? Residents and city staff have voiced varying opinions, but only one thing remains clear: the issue isn't going away. So some have taken a sec- ond approach to redoing roads — amending the city charter. Because' of some unique mandates of the charter, roadconstruction must be approved. by a majority of the city's popu- lation. If that '.clause is removed, from the charter, the . city would be able to proceed with road projects, possibly • sans voter input. Suit the exact details of amendment are still up in;ythe air: "After the Citizen 'askForce 'Put forth" a' ver,. ion last, summer, the possi le change was' sent to the barter Ctiiihnissioti, which .r seedif concerns and if .a majority still objects to the project, if will be put to rest. The ` Charter Commission's amendment proposes a petition process instead of a referendum. If taxpayers want a project to be voted on by the residents, they can petition to get it put on the ballot. Under this. amendment, affected prop- erty owners will have two months to review construc- tion options presented in a feasibility study and inform city staff which option they prefer. The city council will approve the plan which was the preferred option for the majority of property own- ers, after the 60-daywaiting period ends: Essentially both plans put the power to kill a road project' • in the 'hands of affected'•property owners,, but the Charter Commission's afnennt altowstaxpayers to havedfiiethe ,ortunity to, vote to pre vent a<project if it,ls paid^ for out of 'the general revL mile .fund, whereas -the task, force's:.. proposal allows for 10 +input from the. general opulation. According allt1p, the rwoma ask fort e's amen me et; calls frit a i�eighbo' hood veto, 416)1.1 current method of a l ally erendu Uiicier, that cii`o tin tanCes owners direotl aected=t the project :would have the final decision. not voters across : the, city. p, Affected property owners ,will , have the opportunity. ` to" voice concerns, the project may be amendedµto 'reflect those pi St ri b �c. f �C. Ir11 C cervi y 't Lt o mrr h, t Lierq C[Acx �Fer Corn AA f1 l -- f 1---O(Y ' Elie city council member, q� r „-percent of tespondents� favored .changing= the City Charter in: the results Of the 006 Equality of life survey, However, about �0 { per cent .of residents =voted iti opposlton }rt0=it the, West d ow Lake Dri.ve'.4street4 econstructiofl ' project 1n " the, November 2007 election. ; '" got even 50 percent of resi- detits' in precinct four, 'the .'. •area^ in which the construe tion would have.taken place;, cast their support for the 1project.