Charter Report re Chapter 8 - Mar 22, 2010 (did not distribute)

Home Browse Search

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