03-10-14 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Section 8.02, Subdivision 6, generally follows state law provisions for ordering a project but incorporates the charter language to address the allowable timeline for doing so. Section 8.02, Subdivision 7, provides requirements in the event that the project is not allowed in accordance with state law or charter provisions. In this case the question cannot be resubmitted to the voters for a period of 180 days (6 months). If it fails again it cannot be submitted for a period of 1 year. The current charter does not allow the City Council to take any action on a proposed project for one year if defeated. Section 8.02, Subdivision 8, allows for projects that are petitioned for by 100% of property owners, paying 100% of costs to be ordered immediately by council. The current charter requires the public hearing to be held and requires owners to supply a separate petition to waive 50 of the 60 day petition period. Section 8.03, address special assessments for city services. This is an existing charter provision and provided for in state law. The language has been amended to clarify and conform to the provisions of Section 8.01. Section 8.04, is the renumbered Section 8.07 relating to charter exempt areas. RECOMMENDATION The City Council continues to evaluate ways to implement the City’s pavement management plan as it relates to reconstruction of streets. Establishment of an annual street reconstruction program will require the expenditure of property taxes to fund the improvements. The council also recognizes that special assessments to benefiting property owners for a portion of the project costs is a typical funding source used by municipalities. The amendment by ordinance process does allow for up to 150 days for review by the Charter Commission. That time period must expire prior to council consideration of the 2nd Reading. To accommodate the statutory timelines for review and ballot preparation the City Council will need to act on the first reading at the March 10, 2014 meeting to ensure the possibility of voter consideration on the 2014 November ballot. Adoption of the 1st reading of either option does not limit the City Council’s ability to work directly with the Charter Commission to consider an amendment by their recommendation. Each of the proposed amendment options provides an alternative to the current charter provisions while continuing to allow for resident input, neighborhood veto authority and continued opportunity to hold a city wide vote on a project. Under both scenarios an election may be required if the City is proposing to use property tax dollars and special assessments to fund the improvements. Under option 1, an election is required only upon petition by voters. Option 2 still requires voter election for all projects except those meeting specific requirements for street reconstruction. Under those provisions an election is required only upon petition by voters.