Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Duane McCarty November 5, 1979 <br /> St. Paul , Minnesota Page 2 <br /> Special Assessments; Section 8.01: . . "No assessment shall exceed benefits <br /> to the property." "Benefit" has been construed to mean increase in value. But <br /> there is a growing concept that assessments should, in some cases, reflect a <br /> property's contribution to the problem to be resolved, to the cost of the project. <br /> Local Improvement Ordinance; Section 8.03: Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, <br /> provides a time tested, court tested, uniform, workable code for undertaking <br /> local improvements. Adoption of a new, novel ordinance might have to be retested. <br /> We suggest that local improvements be carried out under Chapter 429 or other <br /> applicable statutes. <br /> Procedure; Section 8.04: While Section 8.03 says a comprehensive local improvement <br /> ordinance shall be adopted, Section 8.04 itself actually lays out detailed <br /> procedures (which, in many respects, closely follow Chapter 429) . In many <br /> respects Section 8.04 and its detail renders another "comprehensive" ordinance <br /> redundant. In fact, this detailed charter section very closely follows Minnesota <br /> Statutes, Chapter 429, except that,because of the counter petition time and the <br /> delays entailed in petitions for referenda on any council measures, it would make <br /> it extremely difficult and time consuming to plan, finance and execute local <br /> improvements, which may have several adverse effects on the city's development. <br /> Having had a preliminary hearing with published and mailed notice, proceedings <br /> must stop for 60 days during which time opponents may counter petition against <br /> a project. <br /> a. Dragging proceedings out will no doubt, in some cases, escalate <br /> community problems and friction. <br /> b. These delays (including possible petitions for referenda) may mean <br /> higher costs (now about 1 to 1-1/2% per month) . <br /> c. Extraordinary concern for the opposition will mean that the majority <br /> may impose serious problems on the city and on minority property <br /> owners and deny equitable solutions . <br /> Comment: One wonders about the extraordinary blocks that the draft charter puts <br /> up to prevent even extraordinary (4/5) majority decisions of an elected council . <br /> It seems to say that local improvements are bad, that a representative governing <br /> body does not work. While some decisions can always be questioned, representative <br /> government has, overall , served the city well . <br /> Respectfully submitted, <br /> EHLERS ° P •SS2CIA IjAi 7 <br /> � . <br /> '.. •rt L. Ehlers <br /> 'LE:sl <br />