01-17-2008 Charter Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 6 DRAFT 222 Section 8.06. Public Hearing 223 224 Commissioner Bening expressed concern that the last sentence regarding the notice of public 225 hearing is by itself and felt it was the Commission's intent that notice be sent by certified mail to 226 only the property owners benefiting from the project. 227 228 Ms. Marty stated that notice is never sent to everybody, only to the affected property owners. 229 230 Commissioner Bening suggested amending this section to delete the last sentence and amending 231 the third sentence to read "In addition to the requirements in state law, the notice of the public 232 hearing that is sent to the owner of a lot shall be sent by certified mail, and shall include the 233 information described in Section 8.05, as it applies to that lot." 234 235 Commissioner Dahl stated the notice should only be sent to the affected property owners. 236 237 Commissioner Trehus noted that the terms property owner and affected property owner were 238 previously used and Section 8.06 refers to "lot." 239 240 Ms. Marty stated "lot" is a concept defined in Section 8.04, subd. 4. She agreed that Section 8.06 241. should use the term affected property owner. 242 "asN 243 It was the consensus of the Commission to strike the last sentence of Section 8.06 and to amend 244 the third sentence of Section 8.06 to read: "In addition to the requirements in state law, the notice 245 of the public hearing that is sent to the affected property owner shall be sent by certified mail, 246 and shall include the information described in Section 8.05, as it applies to that affected property 247 owner." 248 249 Section 8.07. Indication of Preferences 250 251 Commissioner Trehus stated that there are different ways that preferences can be indicated and 252 recorded and asked if there is any way to state that when preferences are sent in, that they not get 253 lost and also to state that the preferences are public information. 254 255 Ms. Marty replied that requiring that nothing be lost is a lofty goal and it is important to remain 256 realistic about this, adding it is not possible to write regulations in the charter. She stated the 257 other issue raised by Commissioner Trehus is having secret ballots. This section requires that 258 they be signed by property owners. She stated if there is a question and the ordinances adopted 259 allow those preferences to be private, then the question would have to go to a judge in camera 260 and the judge would double check the legitimacy of the counting. She stated she did not know 261 how that could be applied to this provision. 262 263 Commissioner Trehus stated the Commission discussed this earlier and he recalled the consensus 264 was to go with petitions because it was easier if the language in the Charter says petitions and 265 there won't be concerns about a secret ballot or a concern about names getting lost.