My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
04-13-2006 Charter Packet
LinoLakes
>
Charter Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
1981 - 2021 Agenda Packets - Charter Commission
>
2006 Packets
>
04-13-2006 Charter Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2022 7:23:10 PM
Creation date
5/13/2022 9:42:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Charter Commission
Meeting Date
04/13/2006
Charter Meeting Type
Regular
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.
/
104
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
Memorandum <br /> To: Charter Commission Members <br /> From: Mike Trehus <br /> Date: 4/5/06 <br /> Subject: Neighborhood Projects <br /> I would like to offer the following for your consideration as improvements to the way we,as a <br /> city,handle neighborhood projects. Please be familiar with Chapter 8 of the City Charter and all <br /> recent neighborhood project activity when you read this. <br /> A. Neighborhood surveys to be utilized in conjunction with or instead of petitioning processes <br /> (see"F"below). <br /> B. Develop and require the use of a standard petition form(this eliminates confusion and"word <br /> games" such as the petition for a"feasibility study"on West Shadow Lake Drive). <br /> C. Residents should be given a rough estimate of the cost of any contemplated project prior to a <br /> feasibility study. Residents are then surveyed to determine interest. <br /> D. Because feasibility studies are part of the assessment,residents must be notified of the study <br /> cost in advance and given the opportunity to decide if a feasibility study would be conducted <br /> (possibly at the time of the survey described in"C")in a majority-rule fashion. <br /> E. Non-assessable projects such as bike paths would be subject to neighborhood approval in the <br /> same manner as assessable projects. Since general fund money is used,this could be also be <br /> a referendum question. <br /> F. Proposed projects would fall into 2 categories. Ones that would restore street,curb,utilities, <br /> etc.to"like new"condition and would not add new features,remove trees over 8"or alter the <br /> road geometry would utilize a more streamlined process. All other types of projects would <br /> follow a process that surveys affected residents,holds neighborhood meetings where <br /> neighborhoods discuss potential options,and ultimately puts the project most suited to the <br /> affected residents that is supported by those residents on the ballot. <br /> G. Language should be firmed up so that referendums on projects do not occur before the <br /> question of whether the affected residents want the project or not is answered. The would <br /> insure that voters can vote in confidence that the project is desired by the neighborhood. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.