02/04/2008 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Gordon Heitke January 28, 2008 Page 8of13 or describe the rules directly in the charter (including rules on who is an owner for purposes of receiving notice). Second, this subdivision requires that the hearing notice shall contain, in addition to the requirements of state law, all the information described in Section 8.05. However, Section 8.05 describes the contents of and requirements for the entire feasibility study. Literally, this notice provision might require that the substance of the feasibility study be included in the mailed notice. This provision would leave doubt about the adequacy of the mailed notice unless the actual feasibility study were mailed to each owner. Such a mailing is possible but would increase the cost of all projects. Section 8.07. Indication of Preferences. Subdivision 1. The presentation of alternatives is problematic for the reasons discussed above under Section 8.05. Further, it is not clear how preferences would be expressed and counted. Does the language mean that owners have only three choices —all alternatives, one specific alternative, or no alternatives? If so, is a vote for two out of three alternatives rejected as invalid? Does a vote for "all alternatives" mean that each alternative gets a vote, which is then added to any individual votes for each alternative? And what if the highest number of votes goes to "all alternatives ?" There is also confusion about the timing for filing of preferences. Subdivision 1 indicates that "there shall be a period of at least 60 days prior to the next Council action." It goes on to say that owners are given "this 60 -day period" to indicate their preferences. However, the Council meeting is unlikely to be scheduled exactly 60 days after the public hearing, and the language does not directly state when the owners must file a preference — presumably, within 60 days after the hearing, but one might also argue that a petition could filed by the date of the council meeting. (See similar problem under Section 8.09) Any requirement for petitions or preferences should clearly state when the action must be taken. Subdivision 2. This subdivision describes additional rules regarding how preferences are counted. The first sentence indicates that owners who signed a petition at the outset (under the 25% petition provision) are presumed to have indicated a preference for "all of the public improvements described in the petition," unless they indicate a different preference during the 60 -day waiting period. However, the preference procedure is essentially a vote on the various alternatives presented in the feasibility study under Section 8.05. Therefore, it is difficult to understand how a signature on a petition can constitute a vote for a particular alternative developed after the petition was filed. Must a petition be treated as a vote for all possible alternatives, whatever they may be? At a minimum, this provision would complicate the count of votes, and raise questions about the validity of the preference process if the city relied on the original petition as the sole evidence of an owner's preference. 327632v3 SJB LN140 -86 • • •