01-17-2008 Charter Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 7 DRAFT 266 Ms. Marty stated there appears to be a conflict in what is being talked about. She indicated the 267 early concern by the Commission was that a petition was used for more than one thing. She 268 stated since the preferences can vary by person because we are allowing that here, it is a property 269 owner by property owner thing. She added having a petition actually makes it more likely that 270 people's wishes will not be followed because it makes it more cumbersome; this gives people the 271 chance to send a quick note stating "this is what I want." 272 273 Commissioner Vacha stated the Commission came to an agreement on this issue. He stated if the 274 Commission is going to change this, it needs to be done by a majority vote. 275 276 Commissioner Bor concurred and stated the Commission needs to remain cognizant of its budget 277 and respect Ms. Marty's time. She stated the Commission is going to require legal counsel going 278 forward and felt it would be best to move forward with Version #3. 279 280 Commissioner Trehus asked is residents are required to indicate their preference from the 281 preferences determined by staff. 282 283 Ms. Marty replied in the affirmative. 284 285 Commissioner Trehus suggested revising the first sentence of subd. 2 to read: "Property owners 286 who signed a petition to initiate the public improvements shall be considered to have indicated a 287 preference for all of the public improvements described in the petition, unless they indicate a 288 different preference during the 60 -day waiting period." 289 290 It was the consensus of the Commission to revise the first sentence of Section 8.07, subd. 2, to 291 read: "Property owners who signed a petition to initiate the public improvements shall be 292 considered to have indicated a preference for all of the public improvements described in the 293 petition, unless they indicate a different preference during the 60 -day waiting period." 294 295 Section 8.08 City Council Action 296 297 Commissioner Trehus expressed concern that this does not address one of the Commission's 298 earlier bullet points that said 25% or more can initiate a project and 25% can also end the project 299 unless a greater petition comes forth. He added a project could be approved with a small minority 300 of people in favor of it. He stated it is possible to get a petition to go on the ballot potentially 301 without a referendum. He provided a hypothetical situation in which 25% of the residents 302 indicate their preference for a road, curb, sewer, water, and bike path, and because this is the 303 largest number of property owners who signed the petition, this 25% wins. He stated there is no 304 recourse for those people who would have preferred, for example, no bike path. 305 306 Chair Duffy stated they get a second waiting period pursuant to Section 8.08, subd. 2. 307