Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-10-2014 MinutesMounds View Charter Commission Minutes Thursday April 10, 2014 1. Call to Order — The meeting came to order at 7:04 P.M. 2. Roll Call — Present: B. Amundsen, B. Doty, J Miller, J. Reiling Excused: J. Thomas Absent: 3. Approval of Agenda Motion by, B. Doty, second by J. Reiling, to approve the agenda as amended. Motion Approved Approval of Minutes Motion by B. Doty, second by J. Miller to approve the minutes of Mar 13, 2014 as amended. Motion Approved 4. Citizens Comments from the Floor None 5. Reports of the Chair Chair thanked City Administrator Ericson for input on the Chapter 8 language the Commission is reviewing. 6. Reports of Members None 7. Unfinished Business Discussion continued on Chapter 8. Review of the retained rights documentation from conversations at at the March meeting. 8. New Business Discuss next meeting agenda: A)Chapter 8 — input from Commission members review of documents received in this meetings packet, including: City Administrator Ericson's email, Jonathan's retained rights notes, and any input the other members have that should be recorded in the language. B) Resolution of future meeting dates Next Meeting Date Apr 10, 2014 9. Adjournment: meeting adjourned at 7:57 P.M. The City may make any type of public improvement not forbidden by law and levy special assessments to pay all or any part of the cost of such improvements as are of a local character. The total assessments for any local improvement may not exceed the cost of the improvement, including all costs and expenses connected therewith, with interest. No assessment shall exceed the benefits to the property. Within 90 days after this Charter goes into effect, the Council shall enact suitable ordinance(s) governing local improvements and special assessments. All improvements to be paid for by special assessments against the benefited property shall be instituted by either, (1) the petition of at least twenty-five percent in number of the benefited property owners together with a resolution adopted by an affirmative vote of the majority of all of the Council, Or, A resolution adopted by a four-fifths affirmative vote of all of the Council. The Council resolution shall state the nature and scope of the proposed improvement, and shall provide means to obtain a cost estimate which shall set forth the cost of the improvement both in unit price and in total thereof. Upon receipt of such estimate, the Council shall by resolution set a date for a public hearing on the proposed improvement, setting forth therein the time, place and purpose of such hearing. Such resolution shall be described in the City Newsletter and published twice at least one week apart in the official newspaper of the City no less than two weeks prior to the date of said hearing, and in addition thereto, a copy of such resolution including estimated unit prices and estimated total price thereof shall be mailed to each benefited property owner at owner's last known address at least two weeks prior to the date of said hearing. / At such hearing the City Council shall receive any written and oral statements, and hear any petitioners for or against the proposed improvement. A period of sixty days shall elapse after the public hearing before any further action shall be taken by the Council on the proposed improvement. If within such sixty day period, a petition against such improvement be filed with the Council, signed by a majority of the owners proposed to be assessed for the improvement, or, when the improvement has been petitioned for, signed by a number of the owners proposed to be assessed for such improvement at least equal to the number of those who petitioned for the improvement, the Council shall not make such improvement at the expense of the property benefited, unless, in the meantime, there be filed with the Council a petition asking that the improvement be made, signed by property owners proposed to be assessed for such improvement at least equal in number to those who signed the petition against the improvement; in which event the Council may disregard the petition against the improvement. Any person whose name appears on a petition to the Council for a local improvement, or on a petition to the Council against a local improvement, may withdraw their name by a statement in writing filed with the Council before such petition is presented to the Council. Regardless of the provisions in Subdivision 1, when less than 100 percent of the estimated cost of a proposed local improvement is to be paid for by special assessment, within the sixty day period after a public hearing has been held on the proposed improvement, a petition may be filed with the Council, signed by a majority of the number of electors who voted for Mayor in the last regular municipal election, protesting against either the improvement, or the assessment formula, or both. In this event, the Council shall not proceed with the improvement, as proposed. When a proposed improvement is allowed under the foregoing subdivisions the Council may proceed at any time between sixty days and one year after the public hearing on the improvement. However, no contract shall be let in the event that the current proposed contract exceeds the estimated cost by more than ten percent. 'When a proposed improvement is disallowed under the foregoing subdivisions, the Council shall not vote on the same improvement within a period of one year after the public hearing on said improvement. Chapter 8 — Goals of the original Charter Commission Members in relation to Public Improvements and local government. Desired to retain certain rights to the citizens including; - to be exempted from an assessment, through a request process to the Council - to have an extended payment plan to pay assessment - to show Council that the improvement will have no benefit to property - to require Council prove improvement to property before an assessment could be assigned to the property and owner. - that all public improvements require Council approval and citizen review before execution. - challenge City decision for a public improvement, - to a process to stop a proposed improvement. - to present alternative solutions for public improvements, have them heard by the Council, and reviewed for financial and benefits to meet need for improvement before Council approved staff proposed solutions. - to petition for or against a public improvement being considered by the City Council, the petition having the power to stop the City implementing a public improvement. - to initiate an ordinance. - to initiate a public improvement with 25% of benefited properties being able to justify the petition. - affected residents by a proposed public improvement have right to challenge the improvement and any assessments which may be levied at them from the proposal. - to be notified of any and all public improvement projects. - to require the proposed improvement be of a local character. - that the improvement cost must not exceed financial benefit to individual property, and total improvement won't exceed benefit to all properties. - that improvement costs and expenses, including interest, will not exceed benefits to property. - create a differentiation between "public improvement" and "local improvement", based on assessment to property. - the Council would establish procedures to assure these citizen rights and all public improvements would then follow those procedures. - approval of a public improvement would require a majority vote of the Council if initiated by citizens, but require a super -majority if initiated by City. - the assessment formula pay also be challenged AND IF SUCCESSFULY CHALLENGED will stop the improvement. - the public improvement contacts, as a total, will not exceed the estimated cost by ten percent. - the public improvement must be completed within one year of the public hearing on the subject. - a denied improvement won't be reconsidered for one year. - services to streets, sidewalks, or public and private property can be assessed and are not Hi Brian, Sorry this is late getting to you, hope it can be put to use or referenced as part of tomorrow's meeting, if that's what was intended. You had asked if there were any issues with the existing Chapter 8 language that we felt could be improved, updated or clarified. While we think the existing language is pretty good as is, this is what we came up with. 1. In the first line of Section 8.01,1 think "prohibited" may be a more appropriate word than "forbidden"? 2. At the end of this same sentence in Section 8.01, would it make sense to eliminate the words "as are of a local character"? Doing so would also eliminate the need and challenge of trying to define what is meant by local character. 3. In Section 8.04, Subd 1, the minimum number of signatures required is 25% of the benefitted property owners. Why not make this 50% plus one? That way you eliminate the back and forth petitions. For example, Group A collects 25% of signatures for an improvement. Group B opposes and collects 30% to halt the project. Then group A goes back out and collects 35% so it's back on. Then Group B goes back out and collects 40%. Then Group A goes out and collects 45% of the signatures, and so on. If the Charter requires 50% plus one initially, it would be much cleaner and cuts to the chase. (I believe MN Statutes section 429 requires 35% or even 100% in some cases?) Anyway, raising the threshold to initiate a project would simplify the procedures. By raising the initial requirement, the following language in 8.04, subd 1, could be removed: "...or, when the improvement has been petitioned for, signed by a number of the owners proposed to be assessed for such improvement at least equal to the number of those who petitioned for the improvement, the Council shall not make such improvement at the expense of the property benefited, unless, in the meantime, there be filed with the Council a petition asking that the improvement be made, signed by property owners proposed to be assessed for such improvement at least equal in number to those who signed the petition against the improvement; in which event the Council may disregard the petition against the improvement." 4. The only other area that we think could be improved is in Section 8.06, where in the 2nd paragraph, it requires a 30 -day notice to property owners before imposing a certification of an administrative offense penalty. This would be like for a $150 junk and debris violation that the owners failed to pay, or perhaps prefer to have assessed. In contrast, if the City wants to assess for a street project, all that is required (consistent with MN Statutes) is two weeks. To promote consistency and more efficient governance, we recommend changing "30 days" to "two weeks". That is all. I'll be watching the meeting tomorrow after the fact. Best regards, Jim Ericson City Administrator City of Mounds View 2401 County Road 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 763-717-4001 (Phone) 763-717-4019 (Fax) 763-464-9644 (Cell) www.ci.mounds-view.mn.us (Web)