Laserfiche WebLink
. MEMORANDUM <br /> TO: Scott Riggs <br /> FROM: Dave Kennedy <br /> DA11,: July 14, 2006 <br /> SUBJECT: Mounds View Charter: Proposed New Chapter 7 <br /> You've asked for my comments on the proposal being developed by the City <br /> Charter Commission to amend Section 7.03 of the Charter relating to taxation. The <br /> amendment is so extensive that I can only offer some general comments at this time. The <br /> amendment must be studied and analyzed much more thoroughly before submission to the <br /> voters for approval or to the Council for adoption by ordinance. <br /> I will point out some technical problems in the amendment below that will correspond to the <br /> numbers marked on the text itself. <br /> General Comments <br /> • I don't think it advisable to repeal the present text of 7.03 which is a general grant of <br /> authority to set up any kind of taxing system not otherwise prohibited. Granted there are <br /> precious few such local taxes still available, but a Charter looks to the future and such <br /> authority might come in handy someday. Retaining the language does no violence to the <br /> rest of the proposal. <br /> The substance of the amendment is a system of levy limits for ad valorem taxes and, <br /> presumably, a number of fees and fund reserves. The state does not presently impose levy <br /> limits on cities but it has in the past and may in the future. It is probable, but not certain, <br /> that state imposed levy limits would pre-empt the limits proposed and they surely would if <br /> the Charter permitted higher limits than the statute. The amendment should probably state <br /> clearly that it applies only in the absence of state limits. (Levy limits could conceivably <br /> apply to the fees in Subdivision 2 since the 2006 tax legislation now treats"fees"as "taxes". <br /> Article 13, Section 15,Laws 2006;Chapter 259) <br /> If this proposal is to be submitted to the voters, the Commission should be aware <br /> that the City Council must fix the form of the ballot question in language "... sufficient to <br /> identify the amendment clearly". I think framing the ballot question for this complex <br /> amendment will be quite difficult. <br /> As a general matter the text of the proposal is quite long and should be edited <br /> accordingly. Many provisions may be dropped entirely as pointed out below. <br /> • 293823v1 DJKMU210-4 <br />