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 4 <br />(9) May a person who has signed a petition <br />against a local improvement withdraw his <br />or her name? If the petition is <br />"presented" to the Council, (how is that <br />done?) before the 60 day period has <br />elapsed, may a person withdraw his or <br />her name prior to Council action? <br />3. Section 8.04, Subdivision 2 and Section <br />303.05 of the ordinance. These provisions are very <br />troublesome. We think that the charter means that if <br />any portion of the cost of the improvement is to be <br />financed by funds raised by general taxation an elec- <br />tion is required to authorize the improvements. On the <br />other hand the ordinance says that if less than 100% of <br />the cost is assessed an election is required. We think <br />the charter must be followed. This means, for example, <br />that if a project is proposed for a state -aid street <br />and the Council for any number of good reasons feels <br />that the state aid funds available for use on that <br />street should be used elsewhere making general taxes <br />the only source of funds for the City's share of the <br />cost an election is required. But Minn. Stat. Section <br />429.051, Subdivision 1, made applicable by the ordi- <br />nance, permits that any part of the improvement may be <br />assessed whether or not state -aid funds are used to <br />finance the project. Thus, the Council will be com- <br />pelled to use state aid funds on the project or conduct <br />an election. How can the voters of the City intelli- <br />gently vote on the appropriateness of the "associated <br />assessment formula" when only the owners of property <br />proposed to be assessed are interested? Again, if the <br />voters approve the formula can any other scheme later <br />be used if that if found legally necessary? <br />4. Section 8.04, Subdivision 3. <br />(a) The word "subdivision" in the second line <br />must mean "subdivisions". <br />(b) What is "all of the evidence on which the <br />Council shall base their decision", and what <br />is the "public record of the proposed im- <br />provement"? The language is so broad that a <br />challenge to the jurisdiction of the Council <br />to proceed with the improvement is rather <br />simple. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.