Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />• <br />1 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION February 13, 2012 P 3 6 <br />DATE <br />TIME STARTED <br />TIME ENDED <br />MEMBERS PRESENT <br />MEMBERS ABSENT <br />CITY OF LINO LAKES <br />MINUTES <br />: February 13, 2012 <br />. 7:45 p.m. <br />9:40 p.m. <br />: Council Member Stoesz, O'Donnell, <br />Rafferty, Roeser and Mayor Reinert <br />: None <br />Staff members present: City Administrator Jeff Karlson; City Engineer Jason Wedel; <br />Community Development Director Michael Grochala; City Clerk Julie Bartell <br />1. Possible Charter Amendment — Chapter 8— Community Development Director <br />Grochala noted that the question of continuing the process that was started on an <br />ordinance in 2008 has been researched. The law firm of Kennedy and Graven has <br />recommended that the city proceed according to a new schedule, citing reasons such as <br />change in membership and the council since 2008. <br />Mr. Grochala then reviewed the cover page of his staff report, a schedule for <br />consideration of a council proposed charter amendment in 2012. The schedule includes <br />work session and council consideration in March with referral of the ordinance to the <br />Charter Commission by March 14. The schedule would then allow for a 60 plus 90 day <br />period for charter consideration and then two weeks for final council consideration of <br />sending the question to the ballot. The schedule somewhat assumes that the council goes <br />forward with the ordinance originally proposed by the citizens task force with the change <br />to remove the exempt zone language. He recalled the process the council followed in <br />2007 and 2008 in reviewing the original task force amendment, a proposal by former <br />charter commissioner Bob Bening, and the charter commission substitute proposal. He <br />also explained the tax exempt bond implications of continuing to have the exempt zones <br />within the charter language. He noted that the process of review of the amended <br />ordinance was ended basically with the submission of a citizen petition to put enactment <br />of Chapter 426 process on the ballot. Under state law, the council didn't have any <br />recourse other than to put that on the ballot so the decision was made to not have any <br />other amendments on the ballot because it would be too confusing. The citizen petition <br />question did not pass and that brings us to the current. <br />The mayor suggested that staff go through the entire process of road improvements, <br />comparing what would have to occur with the current charter language compared to what <br />would happen with the proposed charter language. The council received a chart prepared <br />by Attorney Steve Bubul comparing elements of all the charter proposals and Chapter <br />429. He noted that Chapter 429 was basically what the citizen petition proposal brought <br />forward. Mr. Grochala also reviewed a pavement management policy table that set forth <br />a standard for financing road improvements. The policy established a maximum <br />assessment rate and costs to be paid by general property tax levy. It generally resulted in <br />1 <br />