My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-31-1979
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Charter Commission
>
1978-1989
>
1979
>
Minutes
>
01-31-1979
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/10/2018 5:36:05 AM
Creation date
9/10/2018 5:36:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Minutes
GOVBOARD
Charter Commission
DOCTYPE
minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
REPORT OF THE. "PRESENT AND ALTERNATIVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION" <br /> SUBCOMMITTEE 1/28/79 <br /> The assignment of this subcommittee was to look into the follow- <br /> 4/kng questions: <br /> 1. What kind of city government is presently in effect. <br /> 2. What are the various departments and officers, and what are <br /> their functions. <br /> 3. How• much does the present government cost the people. <br /> 4. How do our costs compare to neighbouring cities. <br />• 5. What are the defects and strengths of our present system of <br /> city government. <br /> 6. What are the defects and strengths of alternative forms of <br /> governzment presently in effect in other cities in Minnesota. <br /> Question #1: The form of city government is given under 5.03 of the <br /> Mounds View Municipal Code as Optional Plan A. <br /> Questions {x2 through 4: An item that should be of immediate concern to <br /> the Charter Commission is' the present practice of public funding of pre- <br /> liminary engineering, legal and other costs for development, followed <br /> by special assessment to recover these costs. This practice has result- <br /> Mid in some 40,000 of outstanding charges from cancelled Projects 1978-1 <br /> and 1978-3. These charges may be difficult, if not impossible , to re- <br /> cover. A more acceptable approach is to require that all "front end" costs <br /> be paid out of an escrow fund provided by the developer. <br /> Secondly, it should be realized that general or special assessments <br /> for improvement protects can greatly increase the "out of pocket" cost <br /> of local government. It is therefore recommended that a committee of the <br /> Charter Commission be established to look into what restrictions, addi- <br /> tional to those now provided by law, should and can be placed on the <br /> authorization and financing on improvement projects. <br /> Mayor McCarty will be able to provide input on any further changes <br /> that may be needed under these questions as he gets further into his job. <br /> Question #6: Among the recognized and tested staturtory and charter <br /> forms of city government in Minnesota, the strong mayor-council type seems <br /> best fitted to large cities which can afford a full time political lead- <br /> er in additional to professional staff. As indicated by Mr. Peskar from <br /> •he League of Minnesota Cities , the commission form is most appropiate . <br /> for small cities which lack professional staff. Of the three weatc mayor- <br /> council types, as previously indicated, Mounds View is technically under <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.