My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
11-15-2007 Minutes
LinoLakes
>
Charter
>
Minutes
>
2007 Minutes
>
11-15-2007 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/8/2017 2:30:17 PM
Creation date
9/8/2017 1:53:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Charter Commission
Charter Meeting Type
Regular
Charter Document Type
Minutes
Supplemental fields
Date
11/15/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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).
View images
View plain text
Charter Commission <br />November 15, 2007 <br />Page 10 <br />APPROVED <br />394 Ms. Marty stated that in subd. 5, the City Council may initiate public improvements without a <br />395 signed petition by a 4/5 vote. <br />396 <br />397 Section 8.05. Feasibility Study <br />398 <br />399 Ms. Marty stated the language in subd. 2 of Section 8.05 was revised to reflect the feasibility <br />400 study shall include information on alternatives, such as doing individual improvements or doing <br />401 different combinations of the improvements. She added state law defines "feasibility study" and <br />402 noted that adding more details makes this section more cumbersome and difficult to understand; <br />403 it also raises the risk that the language will be outdated sooner. <br />404 <br />405 Commissioner Trehus reiterated his concern with respect to the size of storm ponds. <br />406 <br />407 Ms. Marty stated a feasibility study is meant to find out whether a project can physically be done <br />408 and whether it makes good economic sense. She stated that storm pond calculations get figured <br />409 out further into the project. <br />410 <br />411 Commissioner Trehus asked if a feasibility study locks the City into giving an accurate picture of <br />412 what is going to take place. <br />413 <br />414 Ms. Marty replied that it should; if it doesn't, you would have a good legal argument. <br />X15 <br />416 Section 8.06. Public Hearing <br />417 <br />418 Ms. Marty stated that the ten day requirement is already contained in state law; as a result, the <br />419 revision requested by the Commission was not made. <br />420 <br />421 Section 8.07. Indication of Preferences <br />422 <br />423 Ms. Marty stated she simplified this provision to make it easier to understand. <br />424 <br />425 Section 8.08 City Council Action <br />426 <br />427 Ms. Marty stated this provision was revised to include a majority rule provision. <br />428 <br />429 Section 8.09 Taxpayer Referendum <br />430 <br />431 Ms. Marty stated that the Commission requested subd. 3 be revised to add the word "determined" <br />432 for a determined percent of the named public improvement project. She requested input from the <br />433 Commission as to their reasoning for this change. <br />434 <br />435 Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to delete the "X" and insert a <br />-.436 blank line for the percent figure. <br />'37 <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.