HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc News Propaganda ,):- ( ' r• i 1 ,--->
r F ,
t t '
Charter vote will
face court challenge
By JIM NAGEL
Staff Writer EXTRA
Seven spoiled ballots have north wind
cast doubt on last week's pas-
sage of the Mounds View City
Charter. When the City Council met as
the canvassing board last week it ------
A;z:.
TEE BAL-
chose to ignore the seven u
LOTS could n-
------------ -------
4-‘','.,--..
counted computer card ballots
turn the elec-
and verified the charter approv-
.!
et
1..ztion aroundal vote of 1,031 to 985..So
one grod the up that But the group that cam-
, 1: opposepaigned against the charter,AC-
:%chhaariteenrgisng ' TION(A Committee To Inform
, Nagel charter"yes"
Our Neighbors),was consulting
with a lawyer over the weekend
vote exceeded
to determine if it had sufficient
the 51 percent
grounds for a court challenge.
required for passage by only .:
three votes. bee Charter,Page 6(N)
` , ' • ,
4
(N) • St,Paul Dis•atch Tues.,Dec. 11,'
1440 harter tfriends
y JIM NAGEL 1 " ' 1 eve t k ley,an opponent of the charter,
'afff Writer Mounds View �' £ ; said"We all would have liked a
5 a , ' ; � ? clear cut answer,one way or th
The city charter vote in ahead of us,"Mayor Duane `� " k '` ,/ other.
ounds View last week disaP- McCarty told the Dispatch atter i` , _ `:g'f $k City Administrator Jeff Nel-
unted both proponents and op- the election.' r
>nents in one respect. � son said voter turnout in the
�' x s ,h election was prettygood for an
He said the council now has 90 s .�x a r
Everyone involved for or days to prepare an ordinance on �� A off-year election.That's positiv
;miner the charter wished the L, k " But everyone was a little disap-
how ublic improvement assess- .' . i x • <A,heke� pointed that it was close.It was
Iters'decision had been more t6:f
ear cut. men will be levied,appealed or , • O no mandate.That'll make it haz
deferred."Then the charter will. ,u f e '` L.
THE CHARTER was ap- be complete"McCarty said."I .rty Rowley for the council.
'wed by 1,031"yes"votes to don't see it as an insurmountable for)initiative or referendum.If "Now the big thing for the cit
15"no"votes,a difference of job." that's what the public wants, is what we do to get back on
dy 46 votes. The mayor said no charter ad- they've got it." track,get moving.In order to d
But actual a was even dresses everything that city gov- His concern is that the charter that we'll have to sit down with
P8 the charter and understand it."
aser than the vote totals indi- ernment involves.In areas not might take away the authority of
'.te.State law requires a 51 per- addressed by the charter,statu- the city administrator.He said Here are the results of the
lit majority for charter tory law will apply. the requirement that depart- charter election by precinct:
aproval.There were only three "I was a little bit disappointed meat heads report directly to the Precinct 1,Red Oak School,
ore"yes"votes than needed council leaves some doubt in
� g in the turnout,"McCarty said. my mind exactly what the role 155 yes,201 no;
r e. "But roughly 30 percent turnout of the administrator will be.I
THE CLOSENESS of the vote isn't bad compared to some hopeI'm moron and nothingPrecinct 2,Messiah Lutheran
other city votes on charters. g Church parish hall,141 yes,93
ised the the possibility of a re- changes. no;
unt or a challenge of seven OF THE ALMOST even vote, Willard Doty,chairman of the Precinct 3,Messiah Lutheran
oiled ballots.If the spoiled bal- Councilman Gordon Ziebarth,an Charter Commission,said he
s were added to the total, opponent of the charter,said:"I .=wished more people had voted. Church,210 yes,191 no;
es"votes might have fallen think it pretty well spells out the My impression from personally Precinct 4,Edgewood Middle
art of the 51 percent majority. problem in Mounds View.Those talking to people was that the School,51 yes,202 no;
concerned about the city are charter was favorable.Maybe a
But,barring such a challenge, ' split right down the middle.Un- lot of people got that impression Precinct 5,Pinewood School,
minds View is on its wayto til something changes that hal- 125 yes,98 no;
encs,we'regoingto have some and didn't vote.But I'm glad it
atter government.State law e went through.Now the charter precinet 6,City Hall,156 yes,
ys the new charter takes effect problems. will have it's chance.I think the 107 no;
days after voter approval. Ziebarth said he"doesn't have charter will prove itself."
"WE'VE GOT A LOT of work trouble with(charter provisions Prch,nc
19 7,Sunrise Methodist
COUNCILWOMAN Judy Row- Church, 193 yes,93 no.
Tharter: B willface court tee t
ntinued from Page 1(N) errors could occur when the card lenge"would be a way of block- factor.
is not properly placed in the vot- ing things for a time." But political differences mig
IOA1 ROWLEY,an ACTION ing mechanism. "There's no way to find out not be that easy to erase.
1mber,told the Dispatch: "It's The challenge petition,Row- what a voter intended if two "Well,"said McCarty,"to
fair to the people who voted ley said,asks that the seven holes are punched or if the punch those that are still nitpicking,
)'not to challenge the election disqualified ballots be counted as is in the wrong place,"Doty said. grinding political axes,we'll
er the three votes." part of the total vote. What the "It has to be a countable vote. have to say'We're sorry about
Jne of the concerns,Rowley court might do is open to question That's why the canvassing board that.'The large majority of
d,is the cost involved.A$250 THE JUDGE could simply re- didn't count those ballots." Mounds View people are great.
id must be posted with Ram- quire that the spoiled ballots be In spite of the closeness of the "This(nitpicking)is not an in
/District Court for the dial- :. : counted as part of the total vote. election,charter proponents plan dication of the kind of people in
;ge and there will be legal Or he could attempt to deter- to move forward with the new the city.The differences of opir
its. mine how the voter intended to form of city government. , ion have come from people ac-
vote and then change the final tive around city hall,the old
'ith Mounds View's computer " a MAYOR Duane McCartysaid
-d vote system,punch cards yes and"no"totals.
Y he sees the charter"as a tool to establishment.It's not indicativ
it were either punched more If the ballots are counted they work together and move for- of the city as a whole.
In once or in the wrong place could reduce the yes vote to ward.The council will have to "We'll come together,you'll
in the wrong manner(with a less than 51 percent,defeating work with the people.And when see that.It's going to work.To
acil rather than a voting the charter, you get them working with you, those who refuse to work with
ins)or were not punched at Bill Doty,chairman of the how can you have problems.?I us,we'll have to say,'I'm sort:
might not be counted.Other Charter Commission,said a chal- see the charter as a welding We have to go on'."
I) ' : St.Paul Dis.atch Tues.,Dec, 11,'79
harter bothersfoes,�
JIM NAGEL i , n L . ley,an opponent of the charter,
ff Writer Mounds Vie 3 ,.;` f '" said:"We all would have liked a
— k ' clear cut answer,one way or the
'he city charter vote in ahead of us,"Mayor Duane''t • l a other."
Inds View last week disap- McCarty told the Dispatch after' �� e`e, City Administrator Jeff Nel-
ited both proponents and op- the election. > see, 4 son said voter turnout in the
eats in one respect.
He said the council now has 90 law ,, election was pretty good for an
veryone involved for or '' p,,,,,i,,, u- off-year election.That's positive.
days to prepare an ordinance on a, E1d� But everyone was a little disap-
aesinst the charter wished the x •
'decision had been more how public improvement assess- 7¢
men will be levied,appealed or e e etstali`�' 'k`� pointed that it was close.It was
a,cut' deferred."Then the charter will. x �' no mandate.That'll make it hard
y"` for the council.
HE CHARTER was ap be complete,"McCarty said."I Bowley
red by 1,031"yes"votes to don't see it as an insurmountable for)Initiative or referendum.If "Now the big thing for the city
"no"votes,a difference of job.". that's what the public wants, is what we do to get back on
46 votes. The mayor said no charter ad- they've got it." track,get moving.In order to do
at actual passage was even dresses everything that city gov- His concern is that the charter
that we'll have unddeeo sitdown t
th
er than the vote totals indi- eminent involves.In areas not might take away the authority of the charter and urstand it."
.State law requires a 51 per- addressed by the charter,statu- the city administrator.He said Here are the results of the
majority for charter tory law will apply. the requirement that depart- charter election by precinct:
royal.There were only three "I was a little bit disappointed meat heads report directly to the
e yes votes than neededPPo Precinct'1,Red Oak School,
f= in the turnout,"McCartysaid. my mindil leaves some t the tin
155 yes,201 no;
Vie' "But roughly 30 percent turnout my exactly what the role
of the administrator will be.I Precinct 2,Messiah Lutheran
JE CLOSENESS of the vote isn't bad compared to some ,y hope I'm wrong and nothing Church parishall,, 141 yes,93
yd the the possibility of a re- other city votes on charters. changes." no,
:t or a challenge of seven OF THE ALMOST even vote, Willard Doty,chairman of the
:ed ballots.If the spoiled bal- Councilman Gordon Ziebarth,an Y precinct 3,Messiah Lutheran
Charter Commission,said he Church 210 yes, 191 no;
were added to the total, opponent of the charter,said:"I „
,"votes might have fallen think it pretty well spells out the washed more people had voted.
t of the 51 percent majority, problem in Mounds View.Those ta impression people from personally Precinct yes,4, 202n Edgewood Middle
concerned about the cit are talking to was that the School,51 202 no;
charter was favorable.Maybe a
ut,barring such a challenge, split right down the middle.Un- Precinct 5,Pinewood School,
lot of people got that impression
Inds View is on its way to tel something changes that hal- 125 yes,98 no;
y and didn't vote.But I'm glad it
-ter government.State law ance,we're going to have some
went through.Now the charter Precinet 6,City Hall,156 yes,
the new charter takes effect problems."
will have it's chance.I think the 107 no;
ays after voter approval. Ziebarth said he"doesn't have charter will prove itself."
Precinct VE'VE GOT A LOT of work trouble with(charter provisions COUNCILWOMAN Judy Row- Church, 1937 yes,93 ne Methodist
o.
?harter:
BéioBallots will face court test
fined from Page 1(N) . errors could occur when the card lenge"would be a way of block- factor.
• is not properly placed in the vot- ing things for a time." But political differences might
3M ROWLEY,an ACTION ing mechanism.
"There's no way to find out not be that easy to erase.
iber,told the Dispatch: "It's The challenge petition,Row- what a voter intended if two "Well,"said McCarty,"to
air to the people who voted ley said,asks that the seven holes are punched or if the punch those that are still nitpicking,
lot to challenge the election disqualified ballots be counted as is in the wrong place,"Doty said. grinding political axes,we'll
the three votes." part of the total vote. What the "It has to be a countable vote. have to say`We're sorry about
e of the concerns,Rowley court might do is open to question That's why the canvassing board that.'The large majority of
is the cost involved.A$250 THE JUDGE could simply re- didn't count those ballots." Mounds View people are great.
must be posted with Ram- quire that the spoiled ballots be In spite of the closeness of the "This(nitpicking)is not an in-
aistrict Court for the chal- counted as part of the total vote. election,charter proponents plan dication of the kind of people in
and there will be legal Or he could attempt to deter- to move forward with the new the city.The differences of opin-
mine how the voter intended to form of city government. ion have come from people ac-
vote and then change the final MAYOR Duane McCartytive around city hall,the old
"yes"and"no"totals. . said •
vote system,punch cardshe sees the charter"as a tool to establishment.It's not indicative
were either punched more If the ballots are counted they work together and move for- of the city as a whole.
once or in the wrong place could reduce the yes vote to ward. The council will have to "We'll come together,you'll
the wrong manner(with a less than 51 percent,defeating work with the people. And when see that.It's going to work.To
ii rather than a votingthe charter.
you get them working with you, those who refuse to work with
s)or were not punched at Bill Doty,chairman of the how can you have problems.?I us,we'll have to say,'I'm sorry.
;fight not be counted.Other Charter Commission,said a chal- see the charter as a welding We have to go on'."
1
ARE THERE. PROBLEMS IN THE. REST OF THE CHARTER?
A Charter draft resulted from a year of research and use of a number of resources
such as the real experts on Charters, the attorneys and specialists at the League
of Minnesota Cities. The League reviewed the draft, and it was also subjected to
intense examination by much of city government and interested citizens. Changes
were made by the Charter Commission wherever shown to be needed. We are now hearing
those things that the Commission already rejected, such as, out of date comments on
the Charter, scare and hard luck stories, pet notions and biases, and farfetched
"could happens".
The final draft of the Charter was only submitted after the Commission was satisfied
that there are no serious flaws. However, "bugs" may well show as a result of
experience, as can happen with anything new. Changing needs may also call for
amendments. These are the reasons that the Charter Commission would continue in
existence after a Charter is adopted, and are the reasons that there are simple and
easy procedures for change (if residents approve).
WHAT IS NEEDED NOW ?
We have attempted to show how the Charter is in the best interest of you, the
majority, and why only the special interest groups naturally oppose it. If you
want to do something good for yourself and your city, vote "YES" for the Charter
on December 4th.
Any questions may be directed to Bill Doty, 786-3421; Neil Loeding, 786-4355; or
Duane McCarty, 784-6074.
Prepared and paid for by the Concerned Citizens, J. E. Miller, Secretary, Mounds
View.
CONCERNED CITIZEJ FACT SHEET
This information is brought to you by Mayor Duane McCarty and many other Concerned ,
Citizens on and off the Charter Commission. We explained the Home Rule Charter in
the distribution of the Charter that we made 2 weeks ago. We have also discussed
the Charter in many public meetings, City Newsletters and the news media. The Charter
will be gone through one more time at a Coirudssion meeting on November 28th in City
Hall at 7:30 P.M. Then, on December 4th, you will need to make a choice between what
we are telling you and what you are hearing from the opposition.
WHO DO YOU.- WANT TO BEI41VE ?
Have we earned your trust by fighting the 6 1/2 million dollar storm sewer project
last year and by starting and helping write the Charter to give you, the people, the
rights and protections of Initiative, Referendum, Recall and the vote on special
assessments? Do you want to believe us when we assure you that this is an exceptionally
good Charter, and that no one has been able to show a serious fault in it? Or, do you
want to believe the scare stories being put out by those hiding behind the "Action
News" flyer?
WHAT IS ALL. THE SHOUTING ABOUT OVER BONDING ?
Those of you who are worried by scare stories and half truths about bonding may not
realize that the only ones who should be afraid of the Charter are special interests
who want you to help pay for construction projects, their friends in government, and
those who live off construction projects, such as bonding attorneys. We think that
most of you want to have the vote that the Charter provides if a future City Council
brings back the big storm sewer project, or a multimillion dollar drinking water
project to support development north of new Highway #10 (both in the planning stages
last year) , or other schemes that you would be assessed for.
ARE THERE PROBLEMS IN BONDING UNDER. THE CHARTER ?
What you weren't told by "Action News" is that the bonding attorneys disagreed with
each other on many points, important provisions in the Charter were missed, and the
attorneys had praise for the Charter, as well as questions and concerns. What we could
conclude from all the "viewing with alarm" on the bonding issue is that some changes
in Charter wording would help avoid confusion and misinterpretation. However, any
such changes can e u ily be rade, and should only be made, in the calmer atmosphere after
• the election on the Charter and during the 4 month interval before Chapter 8 would go
in effect (more on this below) .
\ ` ` :\
"
IZ. Prior Special Assessment Law.
The general law of special assessments for years has
been as follows:
1. When an assessment for a local improvement has been
made by proper municipal authorities under due legisla-
tive authority and in regular course of procedure, such
assessment (1) is prima facie valid, and (2) burden
rests upon the objector to prove its invalidity.
2. Such an assessment in absence of fraud, mistake or
illegality, is conclusive upon the courts.
3. Value of special benefits from an improvement for
assessment purposes is found by determining what increase,
if any, there has been in market value of benefited land.
The questions of whether the property assessed received
any special benefits from the improvement and whether the
assessment exceeds to a substantial amount, the special
benefits are open for review. The law does not require
that special assessments correspond in exactness with
benefits conferred.
4 . In that review, however, when reasonable men (expert
appraisal witnesses) differ, the determination of the
City Assessor will be upheld.
5. Apportionment of special assessments against adjoining
property was a legislative function.
6. Present use is not controlling in determining benefits
in a special assessment levy. The benefit is presumed
to inure not. to the present use, but the property itself.
7. No costs may be taxed against the city by the prevailing
landowner in a successful appeal.
8. The court should not substitute its judgment for that
of the city council.
9. If the court finds that the special assessment was
excessive, the court should only invalidate the assessment
and the city should determine what the reassessment should
be.
10. The assessment must be uniform upon the same class of
property.
The above legal principles are best summarized in the 1962
case of Village of Edina vs. Joseph, Minn. , 119 N.W.2d 809,
but are found generally in Minnesota cases from 1885 to 1976.
III. Recent Important Changes in Special Assessment Law.
Beginning in 1976, the Minnesota Supreme Court began clari-
fying, remaking and revising prior case lair and making new a' ' ess-
ment law not required by the Statutes , as follows:
1 . In Carlson-Lang Realty Company vs. City 'of Windom,
Minn. , 240 N.W.2d 517 (1976) , the Supreme Court ruled—
that a special assessment cannot exceed the benefit con-
ferred (changing paragraph 3 above) , that the value of an
-2-
existing private sewer and water system on lots must be
credited to the landowner when considering the amount of
benefit from the improvement (new law) , that the presump-
tion of validity could be easily overcome by the property
owner by introducing any evidence on value [modification
of paragraphs 1 and 2 above] that "as a practical matter
this means many improvements may not be fully assessed
but must be funded through some other means, such as
general property taxes" [new direction by the court] .
2 . In Kraemer & Sons, Inc vs. Village of Burnsville,
Minn. , 245 N.W.2d 445 (1976) , the Supreme Court
stated that any general benefit from the improvement
must be paid for out of general funds and it cannot be
specially assessed against property (new law or at least
modi=fication of prior case law) .
3. In Continental Sales & Equipment Co. vs. Town of Stuntz,
Minn. , 257 N.W. 546 (1977) , the Supreme Court
Find that although M.S. S429.01, et seq. , provided that
an appellant must appeal within 20 (now 30] days of the
adoption of the assessment roll, a property owner may
sue at any time pursuant to M.S. 5278. 01, et seq., to
invalidate existing special assessments. (This new law
fortunately was later eliminated by the state legislature.]
4. In Southview Country Club vs. City of Inver Grove Heights,
Minn. , 263 N.W.2d 385 (1978) the Supreme Court
held for the first time:
"where an assessment is levied on part of a land
holding which is devoted as a totality to some
specific use, the inquiry into whether the portion
assessed has increased in value must take into
account the function of that portion as a part of
the whole."
[New law which will have effect on assessments in golf courses,
railroads, large tracts of land.]
5. In Buettner vs. City of St. Cloud, Minn. ,
N.W.2d !_, March 16, 1979, the Supreme Court ruled:
a. "where the sole issue present is whether
there has been an unconstitutional taking, the
trial court cannot abrogate its duty to uphold
constitutional safeguards and defer to judr.nent
of the taxing authority. Decision must be oased
upon independent consideration of all the' evi-
dence . . . "
r ,
[Complete reversal of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 , and 8 above.]
b. the trial court should invalidate and
establish a permissible ceiling on any new
assessment.
[Complete reversal of paragraph 9 above.]
6. In Ewert vs. City of Winthrop, __ Minn.
1 1
N.W.2d , Apri3, 1979, the Supreme Court rued:
a. "where the landowner maintains that the
assessment is excessive, the determination
(by the trial court) is to be a de novo
• one."
[Complete reversal of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 above.)
b. Because the City failed to determine
the amount of special assessments prior to
adopting the assessment by a beforeandial
after analysis of each property, the
court should invalidate the entire assessment.
[Entirely new law,
never
er discussed
the edten]the past by the
court, no requirement
c. if there are substantial differences
in expert opinion, the trial courts should
order reassesment.
[New law. ]
d. no right to a jury trial on appeal.
[1inall a oint for the cit .]
e. the trial court should instruct the
city as to a specific allowable figure on
reassessment.
[New law.]
7. In Kraemer & Sons, Inc. vs. Cit of Burnsville,
Minn. ____,• N.W.2d _• August 24, 979, the
Supreme Court ru ed:
a. The trial court can find the thespc
special
benefit was $0, even though the city's
ert
testified there was a benefit of over $200, 000
and the landowner's expert testified otht atstthe
benefit was $0. The city then may
ss
even $1.
-4-
i
b. A landowner who prevails against the city
may tax his costs and disbursements against the
city even though the statute says only a city
may tax costs if it prevails.
(New law with no reasonable basis in the statute
or prior case law.,
8. In Krabl vs. Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and
the City of Eden Prairie, Minn. , N.W.2d
August 31, 1979, a case handled by our office in-
v-�ving floodplain regulations, special assessments and
real estate taxes, the Supreme Court ruled that a property
owner may not attack the validity of special assessments
by any means except by following M.S. §429.01, et seq.
IV. Impact of the Above Changes in Special Assessment Have
Upon the City' s New Assessment Policies.
The above changes in assessment law have led the League
of Minnesota Cities to conclude, "As a result, Special Assessments
made after the decision seem much less likely then they were in the
past to be swift, inexpensive, and certain."
The City Council should now expect:
1. higher cost and longer time to prepare for
a project and assess property;
2. more appeals;
3. higher cost of litigation, including
mor
attorney, staff and independent fee app aer
expenses;
4. more compromise decisions by the trial court
in which the court splits the difference in
evaluation by city and landowner or finds no
benefit at all;
5. more settlements and appeals and greater
reductionsin assessments;
6. more cost of public improvements to be levied
on the general tax rolls;
7. possible bonding problems because of more appr.?ls
and less success by city on appeal.
-5-
a
V. Conclusion.
(Modified from a League of Minnesota Cities Improvement Guide.)
Special assessments are intended to reflect the influence
of a specific local improvement upon the value of the property.
No matter what particular formula or method is used to establish
the amount of the assessment, the real measure of benefits is the
increase in the market value of the land as a result of the improve-
ment.
In the past, councils have been given broad discretion in
determining benefits and their determination has not been overturned
unless that discretion was abused; however, recent cases have made
this council determination more vulnerable and has thus called for
a re-examination of council procedures in order to safeguard special
assessment financing. Now, when a dissatisfied property owner appeals
from a special assessment and alleges that the assessment exceeds the
increase in market value of his property resulting from the improvement,
the reviewing court will not grant any deference to the decision of
the council. Instead, on such appeals, the court will take new evi-
dence and determine the amount of benefit as if the council had never
made a decision on that issue.
Cities continuing to finance local improvements by special
assessments will be required to use much more care in the conduct of
such a proceeding. Certainly, before ordering an improvement, the
council should, as in the past, gather as much evidence as possible
on the issue of whether or not the benefits to be derived from in-
stallation of a particular improvement are sufficient to justify
the cost and make specific findings as to increases in market value.
Where an improvement has been petitioned for and the benefit does
not substantially exceed the cost, a council might adopt different
strategies depending upon its objectives and what it sees as the
potential for appeals.
When the council would not order an improvement unless vir-
tually all the cost can be collected through special assessments,
it may want to obtain waivers of rights to appeal before entering
into the contract and ordering the improvement. That plan may be
feasible only if the assessable area is small. For similar larger •
projects, the council might consider making the improvement contract
conditional on the absence of filing of objections for 30 days after
the assessment hearing. If this plan were followed, a binding con-
tract would not be entered into nor would any improvement work start
until after both the improvement and assessement hearings were con-
cluded and the time for appeal had run. While the city might be
sada .ed with some unforeseen cost if this plan were used, a council
might decide that avoidance of litigation costs would be worth that
chance.
-6-
11114
rw
Another way to reduce the number of special assessment appeals
is for the city to pay some substantial portion of the cost of all
improvements out of general funds. The larger the portion of cost
assumed by the city, the smaller would be the chances that any
individual assessment would exceed the benefit from the improvements
as measured by the increased market value resuling from that improve-
ment.
Finally, some cities might wish to utilize a hint made by the
court in the Buettner opinion by making available to the property
owner, as part of the municipal assessment process, an adversary
proceeding where evidence of market value could be considered and
made a part of the assessment determination. Without further
elaboration by the court in some subsequent decision, this approach
is by no means a guaranteed cure for assessment appeal problems;
however, it would seem reasonable that the assessment hearing notice
could contain a statement' that those who wish to dispute their
assessment as determined by an assessment formula might notify the
council and the council could then arrange for a hearing before an
impartial hearing officer. The property owner could then bring in
relevant evidence concerning the improvement in market value and
the city could do likewise. The city could then adopt the assess-
ment roll, including assessments determined on a conventional formula
basis and also those determined in adversary proceedings.
The language of the Buettner decision seems to indicate that
the Minnesota Supreme Court would limit the trial court to a rev '
upon the record without new testimony if such adversary hearings
held and an adequate record made as part of the city's assessment
proceedings. If that is the court's ultimate decision, the city would
have some greater certainty of its expected special assessment yield
much earlier than if it waited for a district court
ttrial
lrththat
dis-
regards all prior municipal proceedings.
potential solution is somewhat conjectural until such a procedure
is appealed and sustained by the Supreme Court.
While legislative proposals may be made to deal with the
municipal problems resulting from the Buettner case, a statutory
remedy will not easily be found since objections found by the court
to special assessment proceedings were based on constitutional,
not statutory, grounds. In the meantime, city councils should make
a practical examination of the assessment rolls to determine whether
or not an appeal
aisparticular
realisticassessment
ofithelikely
real whether
or not that assessmentestate market
in their city.
A IC: imirmb all ill NEWS
•
(ACTION - A Committee to Inform Our Neighbors)
--What is happening in Mounds View?
You are going to vote on a charter on December 4th.
--ghat is a charter?
A charter is the constitution of the city.
It directly affects the welfare of all residents and landowners
of Mounds View. In a democratic country, we the people are supposed
to be able to manage our own affairs. It is essential that we be
able to understand and control our government and not take time away
from our jobs.
--What do we have now?
At present, we are a "statutory city," which means the state
legislature has some jurisdiction over some of our city government.
--Why do we oppose the charter?
The charter is a minority charter.
- A minority of Mounds View residents asked for the charter.
- A minority of the Charter Commission drafted it.
- A minority of Mounds View residents can vote it in.
- A minority of Mounds View residents can amend it.
- A minority of Mounds View residents can install a city-
wide storm sewer system.
- A minority of Mounds View residents can defeat park
improvements and street repairs.
Join the MAJORITY
and stop this railroading by a vocal minority;
VOTED CemErIt* °
Distributed by ACTION, a growing number of Mounds View residents who oppose the charter.
'411011k
s
• lo• 4
HEAR WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING ABOUT THE PROPOSED MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER
*** Three bonding firms: ,It, �.,.
JURAN AND MOODY, INC. (November 8, 1979)
"From a financial consultant standpoint, I would not recommend a
Charter much like the one that is proposed at Mounds View for any
of our municipal clients."
"The potential delays caused by the City Charter could increase
construction costs dramatically and increase the legal and financial
costs as well."
FAEGRE & BENSON (October 31, 1979)
"The Charter provides more complex procedures than the procedures _
provided by Minnesota law for Statutory cities. This will inevitably
cause some increase in the time and effort and therefore the expense
involved in following and establishing compliance with the procedures
to the satisfaction of bond counsel."
"There are certain specific problems which may arise (and in other
places have arisen) under the Charter language, including the
following: ..."
EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. (November 5, 1979)
"As to debt service on )it must be assumed that these payments
would be legitimate obligations whether or not included .in the
budget. Oterwise the city could suffer a bond default, lowered bond
ratings and higher interest cost."
"M.S. Chapter 429, provides a time tested, court tested, uniform,
workable code for undertaking local improvements. Adoption of a
new, novel ordinance might have to be retested. We suggest that
local improvements be carried out under Chapter 429 •or other
applicable statutes."
*** League of Minnesota Cities
LE'rr kt DATED August 17, 1979 to CHARTER COMMISSION
"This charter,has been constructed in such a manner as to put •
maximum responsibility on the elected council and.upon citizens
themselves, Where no individual above department level has the
power and responsibility to control city operations, department
heads can become extremely independent...Overall city operations
can then be adversely affected."
LETTER September 12, 1979 to CHARTER COMMISSION
"After examining a number of charters in the state, it appears that
provisions such as this are not common, although I have found a few
examples." This .is in reference to special assessment procedure.
*** Mounds View DFL
ARTICLE NOVEMBER 8, 1979, in NEW BRIGHTON BULLETIN
"On October 24, the Mounds View DFL unanimously passed a resolution
opposing the city charter in its present form"
•
•
*** Mounds View Independent-Republican Party Executive Committe
•
NOVEMBER 8, 1979, New Brighton BULLETIN
"Being aware of the proposed Mounds View Charter, we feel
there is not sufficient time between official publication
and ratification of the charter to properly inform the
public. We urge the M-unds View City Council to
reconsider and postpone the December 4, election date."
*** League of Women Voters of Mounds View
NOVEMBER 15, 1979 New Brighton, BULLETIN
"The LWVMV does not favor the adoption of the proposed
charter at this time."
•
DID YOU KNOW?
Of the three attorneys on the Charter Commission
One.was appointed on the day the charter was signed
-- Two others have attended only 5 out of 20 meetings
-- All three have stated either publicly or on record that
they are not acting in legal capacity for_ the Charter, but
as individual citizens
IT IS MUCH EASIER TO AMEND THE CHARTER BEFORE PASSAGE THAN AFTER
i'
jf
ACTION: Blanchard, Burmeister, Pickar, Rowley, Warren, Wille, Ziebarth
and a growing number of citizens concerned for government
•
,,, ,Citizens
B. JIM NA 4, , . ._, : , ,.p ,--/•' , .,, ;` '' th`r'+ rs ns the . ,
y GEL o o pe o in city tions to an adverse audience. a should back him and go to the I.OEIMNG SAID:”The council
Staff Writer sldt 'Y _ '. "WEARE PROVIDING council and ask them to pay." hasn't taken an official positioi4
ONE PEI150N,a former city, on paying Mac eie .It'
$1,000 for payment of councilman,previously crib= ' But Dotysaid that would put P •y hm r sin the
` A groupof concerned Mounds only$200 worth of work: :' Machmeler,"Dotysaid,• "to P a . big negataatm stage,But when it,',f,
,. ., sized'him for not wanting to de Machmeler back into"the gg
• ?E Viecitizns saytheywill a a> t` ':` " : alleging „ comes back to the council
1. *r,• pay The concerned i i e ;• ,,, 'spare a good man from attack in , fend his report, that .; headline situation that he is at-
•. consultant engineer'sbill to keep t ,,trieaa ;� a position lie can't defend.He. Machmeier's unwillaries to tempting tov there ll be more political hassle.
rin at irondale Iii h school in „ B P ,8 avoid.
+ ., him from further political crib g g ias,this money coming. • • defend itproved it was of little •'; Machmeaen is going to get
s w , New*Brighton ursda ,was 1 • He ask
g y ed those present to sign smeared again.”
- clam. • -by Bill Dat and Nell Ltredittg a� ,° 4lachrne er'a unwillingness to value. a declaration :r
'- Doty Y:tigg t n saying the can- „
.*,, THE GROUP announced at a,, Theyhave been involved in local become involved in a li • , • I think it's reat card a
, '' •• >-' debate over his storm sewer tee . '..zeas "We as citizens can setthe :" Machmeler' at the meetin "that the citizens
a s work is legitimate g,
• pay$1,000 to R.E.Machmeler opposition to a multi-mil-on-dol-<;i ma'Mendations stems from his issue right."He asked for and • and they want to spare lum fur have taken it on tlaeanselves to
for a report he presented to the , lar city-wide storm sewer pro'i;:,,,_ p�osition as a professor and ex- obtained cash contributions from ther attacks that would damage ply the man who did this at the
nn city on drainage problems in the posal in x.978 i tension agricultural engineer many of those present. his career. risk of a political hassle."
Ardan Avenue area. {, 'k4 .With the niversity of Miimeso- -- �,
t.oeding told the meeting bE4
Cit. Council since Sep- about 50 residents the Ma= .,,; to ', Some people said the should`,
City p l , 4 ► P P Y '1'-:-----
The
tember has withheld payment of chmeier bill should be paid be, +,,,,;,```i: .•In presenting his report to the • urge the t'ty Council to pay the',
„ consultant's bill.
Machmeler s bill because of con-. , cause the report has seen used ' city he said he could not be- •""
fusion over authorization of the by the city.Copies of the engi-• ' come embroiled in a local con- . "The city is obligated to pay
report.The council said it had peer's report had been available: •, troversial issue"and would not for the report it used,"an wit-
contracted with the engineer for to the Planning Commission and want to defend his recommenda dentifled man said. "The citizens
;f 1:`./ •" s x w T t�-t 7n3 3tZ in - a r •
N 2 :4..:(!f!'
r•
• �S't c . rn-,i,, •,t�t#i�'1'2'''.:
x ; Y!'''''' i. ,,. `
t
r
after
passage .
,:,
,,.. ..
'
An information meeting on the Commission voted not to take a ,, K Int brieflyoutlined the pro- the meetingthat charter o a
.r proposed Mounds View city char- position for or against the pro- f nosed charter or those at Turs- vents are ttem ting to discreditp
r ter,to be voted on by residents posed charter,allowing mem- , P
+ • Dec. 4,will be held at.the Bel hers freedom to support or op- day s meeting. the commission and its tework.hie
PPs referred them to twO letters that
� Rae Ballroom at 7:30 p.m.Nov. pose it individually. , „ Earlier Mayor Duane McCarty, ; had appeared that day in a local
15. told the group the most contro- newspaper,one favoring the
• z (Doty is chairman of the sorb-, versial section of the.charter,,
• THE MEETING was set by ; mission,Loeding is vice-chair .,'"' that dealing with public im- s charter,another opposing it. •
the Charter Commission to in- man.) provements and special assess- "READ THEM both,"McCar-
form voters of the charter's pro- Dot said ifthe coiiimis§ion menta was approved by a mu- ty said,supporting the commis-
visions and the changes it wouldnisi al bondingattorney. Sion of which he too was a mem- '
4 create in city government, published and promoted the ,y P ; Y
charter It could come'under fire , bet."Then separate for yourself
Rut before the meeting,aeon- for usingcity funds for some- 'He laid the attorney who re- ' the thinkers from the stinkers."
viewed the section said it might
cerned citizens group plans to thing not everyone agrees with. slow the bonding process,but The city will be able to sell its
,,1 , distribute copies of the charter „ s • onlyas longas it takes for bond- bonds under the new charter, j
• w. to everyhome in the city. Obviously,the opposition
- in agents to become familiar , McCarty said. "We found the
could say you are using . g Y
: •-• The group,meeting in Iron- money to campaign for some- .;: with the new charter... same things in the Duluth char
AThursday, thing everybody McCarty also told citizens at there."
l-i re" they they've had no problems
• '' dale High School last not ever bod wat%ts," „
• .` decided to pay for the cost of Doty said.
printing the charter copies and l IE ASKED FOR contribtt ` '
the door-to-door distribution ex- ,
peeled to take piece next week- tions from concerned citizens to `
R end. help gay the$158 bill.for having
?' about 3,000 cdpies of the charter' ?:'
NEIL LOBBING and Bill printed following its legally-re-
z Doty,leaders of the citizens quired publication in the New
• group,told the group thr Charter Brighton Bulletin. 1