Laserfiche WebLink
• 1 <br />2 <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 WORK SESSION <br />APPROVED <br />DATE <br />TIME STARTED <br />TIME ENDED <br />MEMBERS PRESENT <br />MEMBERS ABSENT <br />CITY OF LINO LAKES <br />MINUTES <br />February 4, 2008 <br />: February 4, 2008 <br />. 5:30 p.m. <br />. 9:20 p.m. <br />: Councilmember Gallup, O'Donnell, <br />Reinert, Stoltz and Mayor Bergeson <br />: None <br />Staff members present: City Administrator, Gordon Heitke; Community Development <br />Director, Mike Grochala; Finance Director, Al Rolek; Economic Development <br />Coordinator, Mary Alice Divine; Director of Public Safety, Dave Pecchia; City Planner, <br />Jeff Smyser; Director of Administration, Dan Tesch. <br />CHARTER AMENDMENT REVIEW <br />Administrator Heitke noted that the council reviewed a proposed amendment process and <br />timeline at the last council meeting, keeping in mind that the process may need to be <br />accelerated to allow for an additional review period if necessary. As directed, a technical <br />review on the substitute amendment submitted by the Charter Commission was initiated <br />with the city's bond counsel and financial advisor. He introduced Steve Bubul of <br />Kennedy and Graven law firm to report on the matter. <br />Mr. Bubul noted his written report that had been provided to the council. As the city's <br />bond counsel, he urges the council to recognize that the language of the charter is <br />important and must be taken very seriously in relation to the issuance of bonds. His <br />technical review of the proposed amendment and resulting report to the council is <br />detailed, reflecting the level of detail necessary in this area. He encourages the council to <br />review the entire report but pointed out for them that the main themes are concern with: <br />1) the change of applicability to projects outside of those including special assessment <br />such as those financed with general revenue; 2) the lack of adequate definition of some <br />key words or phrases; 3) possibly conflicts with state law; 4) applicability to other areas <br />such as routine street maintenance; 5) confusion about percentage requirements; 6) <br />establishment of an election process for portions of improvement without the necessary <br />functional details; 7) the process for council consideration is unusual, prohibitive and <br />may not be legal; and 8) referendum process timing is unclear. In general, the proposed <br />amendment creates a lot of ambiguity. <br />The council indicated that they will attempt to discuss the intent of the proposed <br />amendment rather than the detail of the amendment (that may have to be rewritten in a <br />legal sense). A grid comparing the intent of the current charter, the task force proposal, <br />the charter commission proposal (and the suggested amendments to the charter <br />commission proposal) along with existing Chapter 429 would be helpful. Perhaps the <br />1 <br />