Laserfiche WebLink
qualifier? Or we can use the Streets Program as an example. Clearly it's a public <br />improvement, but I don't think we can say it's of a local character. I would assert that any <br />city-wide improvement or program on its face is NOT of a local character. In my line of <br />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 <br />don't think it 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 <br />to special 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 <br />relates to special assessments. With the expansion of dedicated revenue to include OTHER <br />sources of revenue (tax levies, fees, funds) the ability to show "benefit" becomes a <br />challenge. When assessments are NOT part of a project's funding, requiring that the City <br />show a direct benefit to the individual property owner would be impractical --if not <br />impossible --to do, and could add significant cost to the project attempting conduct such <br />analyses. <br />As a result of all the proposed changes, the next line in Section 8.01 (Lines 10/11) <br />contradicts the process and procedures relating to public improvements paid for with <br />dedicated revenues: <br />"This Chapter does not apply to public improvements funded only with general funds or <br />bonding." <br />If the public improvement is not paid for in part or whole using special assessments, then it <br />is paid for using tax dollars, in which case this chapter does not apply. This clause again <br />is based on the notion of assessment or no assessments. Leaving this line in the Charter <br />will negate almost all of the additional limitations being proposed by the Commission. <br />An exception to the above would include the water tower reconditioning project --a project <br />funded wholly through enterprise funds. Another exception would be the new park buildings at <br />Random Park (and Hillview and Groveland Parks before it) which were paid using Park <br />Dedication Fund dollars. These two projects then WOULD be covered under the Chapter, thus <br />we'd have to show a benefit to 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 <br />Revenue...." IF <br />An "improvement" cannot levy or collect revenue. Perhaps it should read, All public <br />improvements FUNDED WITH ANY LEVEL OF Dedicated Revenue shall be exclusively controlled by <br />this Chapter...." Or something similar. <br />The sentence goes on to say that such projects "shall exclusively be controlled by this <br />Chapter and the Charter, as a whole..." <br />Since in reality every "public improvement" is funded and implemented using dedicated <br />revenues, this sentence seems to contradict the preceding sentence, which excludes <br />improvements paid for using general funds. Unless the Commission intends to clarify the <br />definition of dedicated revenues to exclude general funds or bonds, it would seem that one of <br />these two clauses at the end of 8.01 would need to change. <br />OK, moving on to the definitions... <br />