05-31-2012 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Charter Commission May 31, 2012 Page 5 -180 DISCUSSION OF THE PRESENTATION 181 The Chair asked Commissioner Sutherland to facilitate the discussion. She noted that the 182 majority of the Commission's issues appear to be around Section 4, 5 and 6. She proposed that 183 the primary objective be to go through the proposals to determine where the Commissioners may 184 have questions or where further clarification from the Commission's attorney may be needed. 185 The questions raised were as follows: 186 In Section 3 Process by 100% Petition: What is the difference between abutting versus 187 benefitting? Chapter 429 speaks about abutting property owners and 100% of costs assessed and 188 the Charter speaks to initiation by 100% of benefitted property owners There was a question 189 pertaining to assessment and who is assessed. 190 Section 4 Process by less than 100% Petition – the same question regarding abutting versus 191 benefitting was raised and initiating versus opposing. The question about whether one property 192 owner in a neighborhood of 10 can bring forward a project. The Commission recommends there 193 be a requirement of 50% to petition for improvements. 194 In Section 5 Referendum – there appears to be a clear need for wider communication and 195 notification to the public so they are informed about the reason for the referendum. Another 196 question pertained to the term ad valorem and whether it would be defined in the feasibility 197 study. There as a question related to what is the trigger for the 30 days of public notice and when 198 does it occur? Commissioners have concerns about whether 30 days is enough time to get public 199 response and would propose the time frame be 60 days. Additionally there was a question about 200 why the Council is proposing 12% of all of the votes cast. This seems like a very high threshold 201 and the Commission would propose that the percentage be 5% x•202 In Section 6 Reconsideration – one commissioner had a question as the date the statute was 203 implemented and how often it has been changed [Commissioner Timm was able to look find the 204 information through the interne. The statute was enacted in 1995 and with the exception of 205 some minor amendments in 2009 has been quite stable.] 206 In Section 7 Cost increases – a question was raised about the wisdom of having a cost increase 207 cap. If there is one what should it be? 208 In Section 8 Special areas - (needs clarification – "regardless of amendment" and why preclude 209 as ordinance) 210 211 RESOLUTION NO. 12 – 01– 90 day extension 212 MOTION by Commissioner Turcotte, seconded by Commissioner Timm to ratify the Chair's 213 request for an extension to consider the proposed Section 8 Charter amendment. Motion passes. 214 Abstaining: Commissioner Bretoi 215 216 ADJOURN 217 218 MOTION by Commissioner Dahl, seconded by Commissioner Storberg, to adjourn the meeting 219 at 9:56 pm. Motion carried unanimously. 220 221 Respectfully Submitted, 222 223 Margaret (Marg) Penn 224 Charter Commissioner/Secretary 5