My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
11-01-2007 Charter Packet
LinoLakes
>
Charter
>
Packets
>
1981 - 2021 Packets
>
2007 Packets
>
11-01-2007 Charter Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/8/2017 2:30:52 PM
Creation date
9/8/2017 1:39:06 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Charter Commission
Charter Meeting Type
Special
Charter Document Type
Packets
Supplemental fields
Date
11/1/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Charter Commission <br />October 11, 2007 <br />Page 4 <br />DRAFT <br />134 <br />135 Ms. Marty replied the most common scenario is to assess the adjacent property owners and have <br />136 the whole tax base of the City pick up the rest. <br />137 <br />138 Commissioner Trehus asked where the Charter excludes area assessments. <br />139 <br />140 Ms. Marty stated there are conflicting references in the current Charter and proposed <br />141 amendments and stated it is important these be consistent throughout the document. <br />142 <br />143 Commissioner Handrick stated she is opposed to area -wide assessments and that it should be left <br />144 to the City to pick up the rest out of the general fund. <br />145 <br />146 Commissioner Trehus concurred. <br />147 <br />148 Ms. Marty requested the Commission consider the language regarding area -wide assessments and <br />149 get back to her. Ms. Marty asked if it is the intent to restrict the vote regarding assessments to <br />150 allow one vote per parcel or per frontage. <br />151 <br />152 It was the concensus of the Commission to restrict voting to one vote per parcel and one name <br />153 per project (in the case of multiple lot owners). <br />154 <br />155 Ms. Marty then addressed the items in the Commission's Bullet List. <br />156 <br />157 Bullet #1: Ms. Marty agreed with the proposed changes in Bullet #1. <br />158 <br />159 Bullet #2: Ms. Marty agreed with Bullet #2. <br />160 <br />161 Bullet #3: Ms. Marty stated this requires 25% of the owners of the parcels; state law requires <br />162 35% of owners of the frontage. Discussion was held whether to raise the percentage consistent <br />163 with state law. <br />164 <br />165 It was the consensus of the Commission to leave this provision as it currently reads (25%). <br />166 <br />167 Commissioner Bening stated this provision begins "a neighborhood may initiate projects..." and <br />168 then talks about a petition for a feasibility study. He asked if the first sentence should include the <br />169 words "petition for feasibility study." Ms. Marty agreed to clarify this provision. <br />170 <br />171 Bullet #4: Ms. Marty requested clarification of this bullet. <br />172 <br />173 Commissioner Trehus stated the City has not indicated what is involved in the project and <br />174 nothing is defined. The Commission has concerns about this and wants the City to define an <br />175 improvement project. <br />176 <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.