Laserfiche WebLink
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 />