My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
03-12-1992 Charter Packet
LinoLakes
>
Charter
>
Packets
>
1981 - 2021 Packets
>
1992 Packets
>
03-12-1992 Charter Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/19/2021 1:52:42 PM
Creation date
12/7/2020 12:55:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Charter Commission
Charter Meeting Type
Regular
Charter Document Type
Packets
Supplemental fields
Date
3/12/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
Mr. Randall Schumacher <br />February 29, 1988 <br />Page 3 <br />and (iv) the area to be assessed, is <br />clear and insures that everyone <br />concerned is reasonably on notice that <br />the City is considering undertaking an <br />assessable public improvement and that <br />affected property might be assessed for <br />a portion of its cost. <br />(4) At the hearing the Council must provide <br />a "special assessment formula" and a <br />cost assessment analysis. Suppose in <br />the actual assessment proceeding the <br />proposed formula is found to improperly <br />apportion assessments: can it be <br />changed? <br />(5) Can the Council at the hearing change <br />any detail of the proposed project? <br />State law permits the Council to reduce <br />the extent of the improvement as noticed <br />but not enlarge it. <br />(6) What happens after the hearing? Does <br />the Council take some affirmative action <br />to order the improvement to be con- <br />structed? Subdivision 3 refers to <br />"proceedings on the improvement" and the <br />improvement being "allowed". What vote <br />is required? The Council may institute <br />the project (i.e. give notice) by a <br />4/5th vote, but is a 4/5th vote required <br />to proceed after the petition period has <br />passed? <br />(7) The protest petition language is un- <br />clear. Does "owners proposed to be <br />assessed" have the same meaning as <br />"benefitted property owners" as used in <br />earlier language of this section? What <br />does the term "at the expense of the <br />property benefitted" mean? Does "in the <br />meantime" mean within the 60 day period? <br />(8) How is ownership of property to be <br />assessed determined? State law allows <br />use of'the tax records of the County <br />Auditor but the charter is silent. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.