Laserfiche WebLink
City decides to levy taxes for a city-wide parks improvement program. (We already levy taxes to <br />maintain the parks.) Clearly such a program would be a public improvement, but how does that <br />reconcile with the "as are of a local character" qualifier? Or we can use the Streets Program as an <br />example. Clearly it's a public improvement, but I don't think we can say it's of a local character. I <br />would assert that any city-wide improvement or program on its face is NOT of a local character. In <br />my line of thinking, it seems that the "local character" qualifier was there specifically to tie back to <br />special assessments. If we're no longer talking about special assessments strictly, then I don't think it <br />makes sense to retain the limiting "local character" qualifier. <br />Continuing on in Section 8.01, in lines 9 & 10, if the Commission eliminates the connection to special <br />assessments, the following sentence would no longer seem to apply: <br />"No collection of dedicated revenue shall exceed the benefits to the property." This clause relates to <br />special assessments. With the expansion of dedicated revenue to include OTHER sources of <br />revenue (tax levies, fees, funds) the ability to show "benefit" becomes a challenge. When <br />assessments are NOT part of a project's funding, requiring that the City show a direct benefit to the <br />individual property owner would be impractical --if not impossible --to do, and could add significant cost <br />to the project attempting conduct such analyses. <br />As a result of all the proposed changes, the next line in Section 8.01 (Lines 10/11) contradicts the <br />process and procedures relating to public improvements paid for with dedicated revenues: <br />"This Chapter does not apply to public improvements funded only with general funds or bonding." <br />If the public improvement is not paid for in part or whole using special assessments, then it is paid for <br />using tax dollars, in which case this chapter does not apply. This clause again is based on the notion <br />of assessment or no assessments. Leaving this line in the Charter will negate almost all of the <br />additional limitations being proposed by the Commission. <br />An exception to the above would include the water tower reconditioning project --a project funded <br />wholly through enterprise funds. Another exception would be the new park buildings at Random Park <br />(and Hillview and Groveland Parks before it) which were paid using Park Dedication Fund dollars. <br />These two projects then WOULD be covered under the Chapter, thus we'd have to show a benefit to <br />property owners. How? <br />Finally (regarding Section 8.01, anyway) the new sentence starting on Line 11 could be worded <br />differently: <br />The sentence begins, "All public improvements which may levy and collect Dedicated Revenue...." <br />An "improvement" cannot levy or collect revenue. Perhaps it should read, " All public improvements <br />FUNDED WITH ANY LEVEL OF Dedicated Revenue shall be exclusively controlled by this <br />Chapter...." Or something similar. <br />The sentence goes on to say that such projects "shall exclusively be controlled by this Chapter and <br />the Charter, as a whole..." <br />Since in reality every "public improvement" is funded and implemented using dedicated revenues, this <br />sentence seems to contradict the preceding sentence, which excludes improvements paid for using <br />general funds. Unless the Commission intends to clarify the definition of dedicated revenues to <br />2 <br />