Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 3 <br /> <br />If it is the will of the Charter Commission to revise the Charter to allow petitions to be filed against <br />non-assessed improvements, there would be a number of issues that would need to be addressed, <br />such as: <br /> <br />• The ability to conduct emergency repairs (e.g., cannot petition against a project to <br />repair or replace failing infrastructure) <br />• The threshold of signatures needed (e.g., 25% of votes cast in last presidential <br />election <br />• The threshold of project cost (e.g., cannot petition something that will cost less than <br />$250,000) <br />• The ability to revise a project rather than kill it altogether <br />• Limit petitions only to general fund projects? <br /> <br />The Charter Commission has also been considering a change to the Charter which would provide <br />residents with the right to initiate projects absent special assessments. This is not a right presently <br />granted by the Charter. There are a number of concerns associated with this consideration that I will <br />attempt to address later in this memo, but first I want to review Section 8.04 which outlines the <br />process for assessed projects initiated by the residents. The Charter does not specify how much <br />time the Council has to react to a petition initiating a project, and there is no requirement that the <br />Council even support such a project. If the Council does support the initiated project, it shall seek <br />an estimate (feasibility report.) The Charter indicates that once the Council receives the estimate for <br />the improvement, it shall, by resolution, set a date for a public hearing on the proposed <br />improvement. The problem is, what if the estimate indicates the project is not feasible, necessary or <br />cost-effective? The Charter also requires that the resolution calling for the public hearing be <br />noticed in the Mounds View Matters, which could delay the hearing by as much as three months. <br /> <br />The Commission has prepared a draft flowchart (see attached) to graphically represent how Chapter <br />8 could function to allow for residents to petition for projects, with language similar to that of <br />Chapter 5 of the Charter. The “initiative” process in Chapter 5 however relates to code amendments, <br />such as, an ordinance amending how many dogs are permitted per household. Initiatives that <br />appropriate money, levy taxes or deal with administrative issues are not allowed. Since most public <br />improvements—with or without special assessments—involve the expenditure of public dollars, the <br />initiative process cannot be used for purposes of proposing public improvements. Thus, resident <br />petitions FOR improvements, with or without special assessments, should not be referred to as <br />Initiatives. <br /> <br />The concerns I have with a Charter amendment that would allow residents to petition for a public <br />improvements can be boiled down to three specific issues—timing, cost and feasibility. As to the <br />issue of timing, it would be difficult to explicitly assign a limit to the period of time necessary to <br />conduct a feasibility analysis, unless it were overly broad, such as, six to twelve months. (Refer to <br />Box 13 in the Commission’s flowchart.) Assuming there was support for the project, the proposed <br />flowchart indicates the project must move forward within one year. (Refer to Box 15.) Within one <br />year of what? What if it takes many months to prepare the plans and specifications, order the <br />project, advertise for bids and award the contract--what if the contractor cannot perform the work in <br />what remains of the year deadline?