04-10-2014 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Hi Brian, Sorry this is late getting to you, hope it can be put to use or referenced as part of tomorrow's meeting, if that's what was intended. You had asked if there were any issues with the existing Chapter 8 language that we felt could be improved, updated or clarified. While we think the existing language is pretty good as is, this is what we came up with. 1. In the first line of Section 8.01,1 think "prohibited" may be a more appropriate word than "forbidden"? 2. At the end of this same sentence in Section 8.01, would it make sense to eliminate the words "as are of a local character"? Doing so would also eliminate the need and challenge of trying to define what is meant by local character. 3. In Section 8.04, Subd 1, the minimum number of signatures required is 25% of the benefitted property owners. Why not make this 50% plus one? That way you eliminate the back and forth petitions. For example, Group A collects 25% of signatures for an improvement. Group B opposes and collects 30% to halt the project. Then group A goes back out and collects 35% so it's back on. Then Group B goes back out and collects 40%. Then Group A goes out and collects 45% of the signatures, and so on. If the Charter requires 50% plus one initially, it would be much cleaner and cuts to the chase. (I believe MN Statutes section 429 requires 35% or even 100% in some cases?) Anyway, raising the threshold to initiate a project would simplify the procedures. By raising the initial requirement, the following language in 8.04, subd 1, could be removed: "...or, when the improvement has been petitioned for, signed by a number of the owners proposed to be assessed for such improvement at least equal to the number of those who petitioned for the improvement, the Council shall not make such improvement at the expense of the property benefited, unless, in the meantime, there be filed with the Council a petition asking that the improvement be made, signed by property owners proposed to be assessed for such improvement at least equal in number to those who signed the petition against the improvement; in which event the Council may disregard the petition against the improvement." 4. The only other area that we think could be improved is in Section 8.06, where in the 2nd paragraph, it requires a 30 -day notice to property owners before imposing a certification of an administrative offense penalty. This would be like for a $150 junk and debris violation that the owners failed to pay, or perhaps prefer to have assessed. In contrast, if the City wants to assess for a street project, all that is required (consistent with MN Statutes) is two weeks. To promote consistency and more efficient governance, we recommend changing "30 days" to "two weeks". That is all. I'll be watching the meeting tomorrow after the fact. Best regards, Jim Ericson City Administrator City of Mounds View 2401 County Road 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 763-717-4001 (Phone) 763-717-4019 (Fax) 763-464-9644 (Cell) www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us (Web)