02/27/2008 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Kennedy C H A R T E R ED Offices in Minneapolis Saint Paul St. Cloud 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337 -9300 telephone (612) 337 -9310 fax http: / /www.kennedy- graven.com Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employer STEPHEN J. BUBUL Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337 -9228 Email: sbubul@ketmedy- graven.com January 30, 2008 Gordon Heitke City Administrator City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Re: Responses to Citizen Amendment to City Charter On July 9, 2007, the City Council of the City of Lino Lakes (the "City") approved the first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter. Subsequently, the Charter Commission submitted to the City Council an alternative amendment to Chapter 8 of the City Charter (the "Commission Amendment "). In addition, the City received a proposed amendment from an individual citizen (the "Citizen Amendment "). In response to a previous request, we provided comments on the Charter Commission Amendment by a letter dated January 28, 2008. You have also asked us, as the City's bond counsel, to review the Citizen Amendment and report to you regarding any legal or financial concerns we might have with that proposal. My report follows. The Citizen Amendment incorporates Sections 8.01 through 8.04 and 8.10 of the Commission Amendment, but substitutes revised version of Sections 8.05 through 8.09. Following are my comments on the revised sections. Section 8.05. Feasibility Study. This language is identical to the Commission Amendment, except for the omission of clause (2) calling for the feasibility study to address various changes to the property. As noted in my letter regarding the Commission Amendment, that clause would be difficult to comply with in many instances, at least at the feasibility study stage, so the deletion here is an improvement. Further, the Citizen Amendment omits the concept of alternatives, which solves the significant problems posed by that system as described earlier. Section 8.06. Public Hearing. The language is identical to Section 8.06 of the Commission Amendment, so my prior comments on that section apply here as well. However, the absence of alternatives simplifies the notice content. Nevertheless, the information to be included in the hearing notice is still somewhat ambiguous, as the cross - reference to "the information described in Section 8.05" could mean just the four listed items or other information drawn from the feasibility study. A better practice