Public Improvements and the Charter (McCarty) 3-16-2005

Home Browse Search

To: Mr. Kurt Ulrich, Administrator CC: Mayor and Council Members From: Duane McCarty Date: 3/16/2005 Re: Application of Chapter 8, Mounds View City Charter Please consider the attached copy of Chapter 8 containing reference numbers to a flow chart I've developed. Hopefully this will clarify Charter language re "Public Improvements and Special Assessments. As I said in a recent phone conversation with you, there are theories regarding Charter language that do not reflect conventional semantics. For example, a public improvement instituted by a 4/5ths vote of the City Council can be petitioned against by a majority {51%) of owners proposed to be assessed for the improvement. This does not "kill" the project. Such an opposing petition only holds local assessments in abeyance. The project may then be continued in discussion stages until such time as acceptable conditions may be found. Or, the Council may proceed with the project using alternative funding sources. However, when less than 100% of the cost of a local improvement is to be paid by assessing benefited properties a city wide petitioning process may be used by any resident. (Ch 8 Subd, 2) Improvement projects instituted by 25% of the affected property owners and a majority vote of all the council members, allows petitioning and counter petitioning rights subsequent to feasibility reports and public hearing processes. Again, this does not "kill" the project but only holds local assessments in abeyance provided there is a majority of residents opposed. Requirements in Ch 8 Subd. 2 also apply here. Moreover, extended petitioning processes under citizen instituted improvement projects demands wide dissemination of information over a project area should either pro or con views expect to prevail via petitioning rights within the Charter. All of the above is set in plain language in the Charter. However, it is my opinion that the City Charter was written to improve communications between the council and citizens. And, not just for citizen veto powers when facing recalcitrant City Councils'. Unfortunately, it seems this salient point is often misinterpreted. Finally (and again in my own opinion) certain sections within our Charter supersede traditional public administration processes; most notably in extended program scheduling periods that may or may not be insurmountably counter productive. Nonetheless, whenever it is agreed that changing times call for modernization, Charter improvements must be conducted via proper constitutional amendment procedures if expected to be both accomplished and functional in the best interests of the entire city.