Misc Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,OF CITY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT a=1,. / ;., r a► n (1F 406 City Hall • Duluth, Minnesota 55802 Clarence Maddy °�' .- ...•.may` R*wmwmv DULUTH 218/723-3330 Administrative Assistant November 7, 1979 f . Mayor Dwayne McCarty f J City of Mounds View f City Hall 2401 East Highway 10 New Brighton, Minnesota 55112 21 / y "• '+ Dear Mayor McCarty: Last week Mayor Robert Beaudin told me he had received a telephone call from you regarding provisions of our Duluth City Charter relating to the making of local improvements. I understand from Mayor Beaudin that he indicated to you that we have had generally good experience with this section of our Charter but that there also have been times when provisions of the Charter have been restrictive of actions that might have been taken by the Mayor and the City Council , where there was a conflict between the perceived public interest and that of property owners proposed to be assessed for a specific local improvement, Mayor Beaudin asked me to write you this letter to further elaborate on the advantages and disadvantages of some of the Charter provisions so that you may benefit from some of our experiences. Even though you may have copies of our Charter, I am enclosing as a matter of convenience, copies of Section 60 through 63 as these are the sections that deal primarily with the procedural matters leading to a decision whether or not to make an improvement. Section 60 is the general grant of power to the City for making improvements , pay- able in whole or in part by assessment of benefited properties, along with certain limitations on the amount of assessments that may be levied against the benefiting properties . The latter provide a basis for the Special Assessment Board, and subsequently the City Council , to consider carefully the financial feasibility of the proposed improvement. Section 60(a) establishes a Special Assessment Board to conduct public hearings and make recommendations to the- Council with respect to proposed improvements. This has worked well for us and has lightened the load of the City Council considerably with respect to hearings for improvements. While the Board does not in all cases resolve differences between those favoring and those opposing the making of improve- ments, it generally has been successful in seeing that those proposed to be assessed are furnished with information about the proposed improvement and in providing a mechanism through the hearing for property owners to input on matters relating to design and methods of spreading the assessment prior to formal action being taken. Also, the Board has to be careful about seeing that the limitations on assessments in Section 60 are conformed to. Section 6l (a) authorizes the Council by a vote of seven members (we have a nine- member Council ) to order the construction of sidewalks or sewers which it deems necessary for public convenience or safety, and cause the cost to be assessed to specifically benefited properties. This has been useful at times when a public sidewalk is deteriorated to the point of being dangerous or in a case of the need An Equal Opportunity Employer