Charter Commission Memo (Miller) Oct 2012

Home Browse Search

From: Jim Ericson Sent: Friday, October 19, 2012 5:19 PM To: 'JThomas'; Jason Reiling; Brian Amundsen; Jim Battin; James Miller Cc: Mark Beer; Nick DeBar Subject: Charter Commission Meeting - Oct 10 12, 2012 Attachments: Chp8upd_9-12-12.pdf Good afternoon Charter Commission Members. I've had an opportunity to watch the Commission's Oct 10th meeting and review the Chapter 8 draft version dated Sep 12, 2012, and have a few observations and comments to share. I apologize in advance for the long (LONG!) message but feel the points are worth articulating. First, there was some discussion about Line S. I too wondered about the draft language and I'm not sure how that was resolved. I'll await the revised version before the next meeting. Keep in mind that the City adopts a Tax Levy. We do not levy "revenues" or "dedicated revenues", although clearly the taxes levied represent revenues of the City, once collected. We can levy taxes FOR dedicated purposes, of course, which is essentially what we do every year when we adopt a budget --a certain amount is levied for administration, a certain amount is levied for public safety, a certain amount is levied for the street improvement program, and so on. Regarding the proposed definition of Dedicated Revenue in Line 44, is it intended to be limited to ONLY dollars collected through an assessment process? The word "assess" or "assessed" would suggest the act of certifying a special assessment upon a property. The word "collected" would seem to convey a more generic and appropriate description, in my opinion. Still in Line 44/45, if "Dedicated Revenue" means monies collected for a "specific public improvement or purpose..." then ALL taxes levied and collected would be defined as Dedicated Revenue, as the general fund levy supports very specific purposes within the operation of the City. "Public Improvement" alone in the definition would make sense, but not the addition of "or purpose". Finally, to close out this definition in Line 44/45, and I paraphrase, "dedicated revenues are monies collected for a specific public improvement from businesses, citizens and residents of the City." Is it not redundant to indicate citizens and residents? Who are these citizens of the city? In line 6, to restate what I indicate above, I think "collect" is preferable over "assess" for the reasons noted, especially since it looks like you were intending to remove assessment in the first place. What about the following, instead: "The City may make any type of public improvement not forbidden by law, and collect dedicated revenue to pay all or any part of the cost..." But removing or separating this Chapter from special assessments would seem to pose other issues that would need to be addressed. At the tail end of the above sentence in Line 7, the reference to "as are of a local character" would no longer seem to apply with the expanded reference to dedicated revenue. For example, let's say the City decides to levy taxes for a city-wide parks improvement program. (We already levy taxes to maintain the parks.) Clearly such a program would be a public improvement, but how does that reconcile with the "as are of a local character" 7