Laserfiche WebLink
2000 First Bank Place West <br />Minneapolis <br />Minnesota 55402 <br />Telephone (612) 333-0543 <br />Telecopier (612) 333-0540 <br />Clayton L. LeFevere <br />Herbert P. Lefler <br />J. Dennis O'Brien <br />John E. Drawz <br />David J. Kennedy <br />Joseph E. Hamilton <br />John B. Dean <br />Glenn E. Purdue <br />Richard J. Schieffer <br />Charles L. LeFevere <br />Herbert P. Lefler III <br />James J. Thomson, Jr. <br />Thomas R. Galt <br />Dayle Nolan <br />John G. Kressel <br />Steven B. Schmidt <br />James M. Strommen <br />Ronald H. Batty <br />William P. Jordan <br />William R. Skallerud <br />Rodney D. Anderson <br />Corrine A. Heine <br />David D. Beaudoin <br />Steven M. Tallen <br />Mary Frances Skala <br />Christopher J. Harristhal <br />Timothy J. Pawlenty <br />Rolf A. Sponheim <br />Julie A. Bergh <br />Darcy L. Hitesman <br />David C. Roland <br />Karen A. Chamerlik <br />Paul D. Baertschi <br />Lefe crc <br />Lefler <br />Kennedv <br />O'Brien g <br />llrawz <br />t enac,im al <br />:�titiuCGW�n1 <br />February 29, 1988 <br />Mr. Randall Schumacher <br />City Administrator <br />City of Lino Lakes <br />1189 Main Street <br />Lino Lakes, Minnesota 55014 <br />Re: City Charter Assessment Procedures <br />Dear Randy: <br />In my letter of December 24, 1987, I spoke in a general <br />way about the difficulties of financing local improve- <br />ments under Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes Charter. I've <br />agreed to appear before the Charter Commission March <br />3rd to discuss the matter in more detail, and you have <br />asked me to describe some specific examples of problem <br />areas for the Commission to consider prior to the <br />meeting. As I pointed out in my earlier letter, <br />comments of this kind tend to get quite technical in <br />nature; and I want to assure the Commission members <br />that I am not simply hair-splitting, but rather dealing <br />with things that can fundamentally affect the validity <br />of the special assessment process and the ability of <br />the City to market its bonds to finance local improve- <br />ments. The courts require very strict compliance with <br />assessment procedures in law or charter, and thus we as <br />bond counsel must be confident that those procedures <br />can be and are in fact followed prior to issuing our <br />approving opinion on the bonds. A list of troublesome <br />points in the charter and its implementing ordinance <br />(Ord. Code Sec. 3.03) follow. Comparisons with state <br />law governing assessments (Minn. Stat. Chapter 429) are <br />made where appropriate. <br />1. Petitions instituting improvement. The <br />petitions must be signed by the benefitted property <br />owner. Benefit can only be determined after the work <br />is done and the assessment roll prepared. It may be <br />that the property included in the petition will be <br />found to have received no benefit. Is the petition <br />valid at the outset? The statute uses the term "owners <br />