02/27/2008 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Gordon Heitke January 30, 2008 Page 2 of 4 would be to state exactly what needs to be included in the hearing notice, as in Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.031, subdivision 1. Section 8.07. Property Owners Petition. Subdivision 1. This subdivision calls for a 30 -day period in which owners may petition against the improvement (apparently as an alternative to the preference voting system in the Commission Amendment). The only technical concern is confusion about whether the petition period is 30 days or the period from the public hearing to the first council meeting after expiration of a 30 -day period after the hearing. The latter is expressly stated in Section 8.08, leaving ambiguity on this point in Section 8.07. Subdivision 2. This subdivision creates a special rule for utilities that is similar to Section 8.07, subdivision 3 of the Commission Amendment. However, in the Commission Amendment the rule was triggered if owners "voted" for a street project without utilities where staff had recommended that utilities be included in the project (in which case there was a five -year wait before utilities could be installed in that street unless no general revenues are used). Here, the rule applies whenever a street is "being improved without utilities recommended by staff," in which case the waiting period is 15 years. It is not clear when this situation would occur, as owners could not petition against just the utility portion of an improvement. If the feasibility study calls for street and utility project, the council will either order the improvement or the owners will petition against the improvement. Presumably, if the owners do not petition against the improvement, the council could decide on its own to drop the utility portion of the project despite staffs recommendation, and improve only the street. If so, this subdivision would literally be triggered, but the 15 -year waiting period seems to penalize the owners for something beyond their control. Further, a 15 -year period seems unreasonable under any circumstance. In any event, the language has the same flaws as the Commission Amendment, which makes enforcement of this subdivision practically impossible. Section 8.08. City Council Action. Subdivision 1. This subdivision states the rules for a petition against the improvements. Our concern (aside from the confusion about the petition period mentioned above) is how the 50% requirement is satisfied. The language calls for signatures by "over 50% of the property owners." Section 8.07, subdivision 1, above, indicates that the rules for signing a petition under Section 8.04, subdivision 4 apply here as well. Fundamental problems with those rules are discussed in my prior letter regarding the Commission Amendment. In addition, those rules are purportedly based on a percentage of property, while this subdivision speaks of a percentage of property owners. Suffice it to say the rules for this petition would need to be clarified. 328194v1 SJB LNI40 -86