08/27/2012 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION August 6, 2012 DRAFT 46 because it is constitutionally vague and impossible for the city to understand how it can 47 be applied. The state formula for a levy limit is complex and the limit itself has been 48 determined for each city by the state. The city shouldn't be put in a position where it 49 must guess how to calculate the limit and that in itself could expose the city to liability. 50 He noted also that the "2012 levy" is noted and it isn't clear if that is the year levied or 51 the year collected, leaving another question. Also there are problems in the details of the 52 amendment. There is language requiring that new levies for special districts or utilities be 53 included in the limit and that is not clear in how it would be implemented because of its 54 ambiguity and would seemingly not allow bonding for projects that is allowed under state 55 law. The tax cap amendment also includes language regarding net tax capacity but that 56 term is not clear. Mr. Bubul clarified that the Charter Commission does have the 57 authority to put forward an amendment that includes a levy limit but there is a 58 responsibility to put forward amendments that are workable and constitutional. 59 60 Mr. Bubul then reviewed the other amendment submitted by the Charter Commission 61 (relating to how the Charter Commission is governed). He explained the three elements 62 of the amendment that contradict Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410 that governs charter 63 government. The Legislature can change that language and the authority granted by it but 64 that cannot be done by amendment to a city charter. City Attorney Langel has submitted 65 an opinion that is clearly explains why the amendment should not be put on the ballot. 66 67 Administrator Karlson noted that a resolution has been prepared by legal counsel that 68 rejects both of the amendments. The council concurred that they would be reviewing the 69 legal opinions, directing any questions to the city administrator and considering the 70 matter at the next council meeting. 71 72 The council also reviewed Ordinance No. 05 -12 that appears on the Council Agenda for 73 August 13, the council proposed charter amendment regarding financing for special 74 assessments. The amendment has been reviewed and rejected by the Charter 75 Commission. Mr. Bubul explained that if the council wishes to continue with the 76 statutory process, it would approve a second reading as well as a resolution calling for a 77 special election and establishing ballot language. Ballot language has been drafted and is 78 lengthy because it attempts to explain clearly a somewhat complicated question. The 79 mayor offered his explanation of the purpose of the amendment and suggested his support 80 for the amendment that he believes will be a fair process; the council has discussed it 81 thoroughly over the past months. 82 83 4. Schedule date to review 2013 budget — The council concurred to schedule a 84 special work session for August 13, to begin upon adjournment of the regular council 85 meeting that evening. The mayor requested that staff provide recommendations to 86 address the impending budget gap. 87 88 2. Request for Formalize Geocache Program in Lino Lakes Parks System — This 89 item was tabled for discussion at a future work session. 90 2