Chair Doty Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Page 10 Section 7.07: is the same as the Model . The only question is the last sentance which is somewhat unclear and would be helpful to clarify us as to what is really meant. Section 7.08: same as the Model . Section 7.09: same as the Model . Section 7.10: is the same at the Model except I think it would be helpful to reference the statutes. Sub. 2: should be deleted. It is not practical , it is expensive and will be extremely confusing to the public. It will give the public a misunderstanding in thinking that they have voted on an issue and will cause the City to be confronted with potential recall fights that are unnecessary and will cause further confusion and frustration to the public. Section 7.11 : generally is consistant with the Model language. Section 7.12: generally is consistant with the Model language. Sub. 2: is not really necessary and there may be better ways to provide the public with this information other than an additional mailing. For the most part, under the emergency ordinance language, found in earlier chapter, the information contained in the report that is requested has already been accomplished. Secondly, the answer to any emergency expenditure has no relationship to Section 7.05 since it could not be planned for. Chapter 8: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT and SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Section 8.01 : same as the Model language. Section 8.02: same as the language of the Model Charter. Section 8.03: is generally the same as the Model Charter with the exception of proviso relating to 8.04. This particular section will create problems for the City and is a redundant operation. The first three previsions with the exception of the reference to point 8.04 follows the Minnesota Statutes of 429. Attached is a summary from the League Statutory Handbook that outlines the procedure. This par- ticular section will add an additional 31 days to the process of doing public improve- ments plus the added expense of two mailings; a minimum of extra publications. Presently, the Statutes 429 provide under 429.031 that the City Council prior to the approval of a public improvement must hold at least one public hearing, publish a notice of that hearing as least twice for the purpose of considering the economic feasibility and the public hearing may not occur any earlier than three days before the last publication. Further, the property owners must be notified by mail the notice of hearing and its purpose. The Council then has six months to adopt the proposed improvement. Secondly, under 429.061 the assessment procedure requires the assessment roles be prepared and open to public and at least one notice of hearing be published and mailings sent to each effected property owner 'stating the proposed assessments on the property. This subsection really does not do anything new excepts for handi- capping the City by causing items to be published before they are effectively known. Examples of the last comment would be the construction time table, and the allocation of costs among the different classification of property the Council 's determination on how to assess the project. These things may not be known