My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
02/27/2008 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2008
>
02/27/2008 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2014 12:19:43 PM
Creation date
5/6/2014 9:30:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
02/27/2008
Council Meeting Type
Work Session Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
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).
View images
View plain text
(ii) The feasibility study must include (for each <br />alternative) five listed items in addition to any <br />requirements under Chapter 429. (See Section <br />8.05, subd. 1) <br />(iii) A public hearing must be held with (apparently) <br />the same notice requirements as Chapter 429, <br />except that the mailed notice must include <br />detailed information about each alternative from <br />the feasibility study. (The notice under Chapter <br />429 requires a description of the general nature <br />of the improvement, the estimated cost, and the <br />proposed area to be assessed). <br />(iv) After the hearing, owners have 60 days to <br />indicate their preferences for all the proposed <br />improvements, a specific alternative <br />combination, or none of the improvements. <br />(v) The Council must approve the alternative <br />approved by the largest number of owners, and <br />shall not approve any of them if the largest <br />number of owners indicated a preference for <br />none. <br />(vi) If owners indicate a preference for a street <br />improvement without utilities that were <br />recommended by staff, such utilities may not be <br />installed using any City general revenue within <br />five years after completion of the street. <br />(vii) If the owners preferred some alternative (rather <br />than "none "), there is a second 60 -day waiting <br />period for final council action on the <br />improvements. [This period seems to be <br />relevant only for projects funded in part with <br />general revenues, discussed below, but the <br />proposal literally imposes this waiting period on <br />all improvements.] <br />The Citizen Proposal calls for a public hearing that <br />generally follows the rules of Chapter 429, but with a <br />more detailed feasibility study and hearing notice <br />(incorporating most of the language on these topics in <br />the Charter Commission Proposal). <br />However, instead of the "owner preference for <br />alternatives" system in the Charter Commission <br />Proposal, the Citizen Proposal provides a two -step <br />opportunity for petitions against the improvements: <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.