02/27/2008 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Gordon Heitke January 30, 2008 Page 3 of 4 Subdivision 2. This subdivision calls for a 60 -day waiting period if no valid timely petition is filed, which provides an opportunity for a taxpayer petition against the improvement (rather than a reverse referendum as described in the Commission Amendment). The same confusion about the length of the petition period appears in this version as well. And, as in Section 8.08 of the Commission Amendment, this provision calls for a 60 -day waiting period for all projects, in conflict with the express limitation on taxpayer petitions in Section 8.09. Section 8.09. Taxpayer Petition. Subdivision 1. This subdivision describes the rules for a taxpayer petition against the improvements, which applies only when an improvement is to be funded in part "through the City general fund." The reference to "City general fund" is clearer than the reference to "general revenue" in the Commission Amendment. My only technical question is whether the threshold for a successful petition should be based on a percentage of registered voters "in the last City election," which includes even a special election. Typically, these types of petition requirements use data from the most recent general election, as such data is more representative and stable. A broader question is more one of policy: whether a taxpayer petition to halt the improvements is appropriate, instead of a reverse referendum (as provided in the Commission Amendment). The taxpayer petition in the Citizen Amendment occurs only if there has been no valid petition against the improvements filed by of the affected owners. That is, the proposed taxpayer petition clause would allow a relatively small group of taxpayers (approximately 1,900 out of approximately 10,000 registered voters) to halt the improvements, even though a majority of the affected owners themselves did not object. By contrast, a typical reverse referendum provision gives all voters in the city a voice in the decision after the petition threshold is met, so the improvements would be halted only if the majority of persons voting on the question disapprove. I raise this point simply to highlight the different consequences of the two provisions. Subdivision 2. This subdivision describes what happens if the petition is successful. My only comment is regarding the ambiguity about Council initiation of the same or substantially similar improvement within the next twelve months after a valid petition against the improvements. Comments in my prior letter on this topic under Section 8.09, subdivision 4 of the Commission Amendment apply here as well. Subdivision 3. This subdivision is similar to Section 8.09, subdivision 5 of the Commission Amendment, dealing with final council action and bidding. Here, the council decision to approve the improvement is clearly optional rather than mandatory. However, some of the weaknesses in the Commission Amendment remain: The term "allowed" is unclear, the rules (including limitation on cost increases) seems to govern only projects that were subject to taxpayer petition, and there is no clear requirement for a final resolution "ordering" the project in all cases. 328194v1 SJB LN140 -86