Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-01-1995 Charter MinutesMINUTES RECEIVED CHARTER COMMISSION OF LINO LAKES, MN JUNE 1, 1995 JUN 2 7 1995 LINO LAKES CITY HALL CITY OF LINO LAKES 1. Call to order The meeting was called to order by Chair Ron Solfest at 7:30 P.M. when a quorum was present. Roll call: Present were Mark Benson, Robert Doocy, William Houle, Richard Lafond, Bart Rehbein, Ronald Solfest, Diana Turner and Steve Montain. 2. Minutes of the May 4, 1995 meeting were approved as presented 3. Chair Ron Solfest informed the commission that he had two applications for terms on the charter commission and that applications should be in by June 15. Current members were informed when their terms were due to expire. 4. A brief review of the May 4 meeting with Tom DeWolfe and John Powell was made prior to the achievement of a quorum. This review was made to reaquaint the commission and inform the audience of the topic, the inability of the city to pay for road reconstruction under the current charter. 5. Presentations were given by commission members relating to the six options. Attached are copies of presentations made by William Houle, Bart Rehbein and Mark Benson, Ron Solfest, and Paul Montain. Diana Turner felt that her topic, amend chapter 8 with regards to assessments, lacked input and knowledge and wanted the group to meet and discuss the topic. It was felt that we wouldn't have time to do this in time to put the issue on the November 1995 ballot. Mr.. Williams was not present. Comments from the audience are also attached. 6. All options were discussed at length. Three votes were taken with Option C receiving the most votes. 7. The timing of the process was discussed. A motion to include our recommendation on the November ballot was passed unanimously. Two public hearings could be held in late July and early August. Chair Solfest would present our recommendation at the City Council work session on June 7. A committee would be formed to work on the draft language, with final language ready by late June. Committee members will be Solfest, Rehbein, Montain and Lafond. 8. Next meeting will be June 22 at 7:00 to consider council input and subcommittee input. 8a. A letter will be sent by Chair Solfest to Jennifer Karmann and Judith Michaud re: attendance 9. Meeting adjourned 9:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Robert Doocy, secretary AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION, 6/1/95 MEETING Mike ?, 675 Shadow Court: Continue to patch. If the repair is in excess of $4400 take out of the general fund. Monica Slaten, Red Maple Lane: Write two proposals, one for residential, one for commercial. Encourage commercial development, not price residences out of their homes. (Commercial is out of the charter now, so point is moot.) John Landers, Sunrise Dr.: Whatever decision is made, the recommendation should be on the ballot. Raymond Slatten--The 51 % provision currently in the charter has been thrown out in 5 of 6 options. What has changed to justify this? The 51 % provision must remain. Dawn Kenny, Red Maple Ln.: Questioned the $25,000 and 10% parts of Option C. Chris Lamere, 7141 Whippoorwill: Not for F. Donald Dunne, Black Duck Dr.: More 100 foot lots are in the future of Lino Lakes. If the charter is impeding commercial, then that should change. We're not making any progress getting commercial & business. Olxe„" Option B. men Chapter 8, Replace with Minnesota Statutues Chapter 429 PRO'S 1. Gives the city the ability to plan and perform improvements that are necessary even if they aren't popular. 2. Statute is already drafted - no need to work out new language. 3. There already exists a large body of case law. 4. No one can be assessed more than the value of the benefit provided. 5. Assessments must be uniform based on the same class of property. 6. The property owner can appeal assessment to the district court. 7. When an improvement is petitioned there is an appeal process to challenge the validity of the petition. 8. Unless there is a petition initiated by at least 35% of the affected property owners, the council must pass improvement with a 4/5's vote. 9. Section 429.051 gives the city the ability to pay that part of improvement that can't be assessed from General Ad Valorem Taxes. 10. Keep rest of charter in place. CON'S 1. Property owners who are against an improvement may not be able to stop the project. 2. Assessment would be based on the ultimate highest use of the property once the improvement is in. 3. City council can initiate local improvements that are not widely supported. 4. All property owners in the city will share in paying for that part of the improvement that can't be assessed.