11-29-2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Charter Commission November 29, 2007 Page 7 APPROVED 65 Commissioner Trehus stated the Commission discussed this earlier and he recalled the consensus 266 was to go with petitions because it was easier if the language in the Charter says petitions and 267 there won't be concerns about a secret ballot or a concern about names getting lost. 268 Ms. Marty stated there appears to be a conflict in what is being talked about. She indicated the 269 early concern by the Commission was that a petition was used for more than one thing. She 270 stated since the preferences can vary by person because we are allowing that here, it is a property 271 owner by property owner thing. She added having a petition actually makes it more likely that 272 people's wishes will not be followed because it makes it more cumbersome; this gives people the 273 chance to send a quick note stating "this is what I want." 274 275 Commissioner Vacha stated the Commission came to an agreement on this issue. He stated if the 276 Commission is going to change this, it needs to be done by a majority vote. 277 278 Commissioner Bor concurred and stated the Commission needs to remain cognizant of its budget 279 and respect Ms. Marty's time. She stated the Commission is going to require legal counsel going 280 forward and felt it would be best to move forward with Version #3. 281 282 Commissioner Trehus asked is residents are required to indicate their preference from the 283 preferences determined by staff. 284 285 Ms. Marty replied in the affirmative. ...""N286 287 Commissioner Trehus suggested revising the first sentence of subd. 2 to read: "Property owners 288 who signed a petition to initiate the public improvements shall be considered to have indicated a 289 preference for all of the public improvements described in the petition, unless they indicate a 290 different preference during the 60 -day waiting period." 291 292 It was the opinion of the majority of the Commission to revise the first sentence of Section 8.07, 293 subd. 2, to read: "Property owners who signed a petition to initiate the public improvements shall 294 be considered to have indicated a preference for all of the public improvements described in the 295 petition, unless they indicate a different preference during the 60 -day waiting period." 296 297 Section 8.08 City Council Action 298 299 Commissioner Trehus expressed concern that this does not address one of the Commission's 300 earlier bullet points that said 25% or more can initiate a project and 25% can also end the project 301 unless a greater petition comes forth. He added a project could be approved with a small minority 302 of people in favor of it. He stated it is possible to get a petition to go on the ballot potentially 303 without a referendum. He provided a hypothetical situation in which 25% of the residents 304 indicate their preference for a road, curb, sewer, water, and bike path, and because this is the 305 largest number of property owners who signed the petition, this 25% wins. He stated there is no 306 recourse for those people who would have preferred, for example, no bike path. 307 ^308 Chair Duffy stated they get a second waiting period pursuant to Section 8.08, subd. 2. 7