My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
06-01-1995 Charter Packet
LinoLakes
>
Charter
>
Packets
>
1981 - 2021 Packets
>
1995 Packets
>
06-01-1995 Charter Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2022 7:21:30 PM
Creation date
5/6/2022 12:35:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Charter Commission
Meeting Date
06/01/1995
Charter Meeting Type
Special
Charter Document Type
Packets
Retention Until
Permanent
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
Lino Lakes Charter Commission <br /> 1 Jun95 BD/RS <br /> d' Option 3: Abandon § 8 with Safeguards <br /> • Leave intact: <br /> 8.01 - Gives city power to make improvements <br /> - Limits assessments to Cost and Benefits received <br /> 8.02 - Charter governs improvements <br /> 8.03 - City to create ordinances, etc. to detail specifics <br /> A, <br /> • Eliminate 8.04 - 8.07 <br /> • Replace with: k{ <br /> 8.04 - Assessment value in excess of the lower of: <br /> - 10% property value }�P S-k, <br /> - $25K ` <br /> be deferred until sale and/or subdivision of property <br /> (at which time deferred assessment and charges due in full) <br /> 8.05 - Assessment billed allowed to be spread over minimum of 10 years <br /> 8.06 - Improvement costs not covered by assessments may be funded through <br /> general funds <br /> INDIVIDUAL BENEFITS <br /> • Cap on assessment billed <br /> • 8.01 reiterates benefited maximum (redundant to SS 429) <br /> • Provides minimum time assessment spread over (redundant to policy) <br /> • General funds allowed to be used for public improvements <br /> • General fund (and improvement in general) usage still subject to §5 referendum <br /> privileges <br /> PUBLIC BENEFITS <br /> • Eliminates complicated and tangled language of §8 <br /> • Allows general funds to be used to finance improvements <br /> • Makes easier for city to plan, coordinate, and manage improvements <br /> INDIVIDUAL NEGATIVES <br /> • General funds allowed to be used for public improvements <br /> • Assessments could be forced to value benefited (cap also limits) <br /> • Allows city to plan and execute improvements (public good vs. private good) <br /> PUBLIC NEGATIVES <br /> • Cap still ties hands on improvement projects <br /> • Referendum privileges inject uncertainty <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.