HomeMy WebLinkAboutCharter Report re Chapter 8 - Mar 22, 2010 (did not distribute)to: Charter Commission Members
from: Jim Ericson, Clerk -Administrator
re: Potential Amendments to Chapter 8
date: March 22, 2010
I am writing to provide a summary of issues regarding a potential revision to Chapter 8 of the
Mounds View City Charter entitled PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS. A "Local Improvement' is defined as a public improvement financed partly or
wholly from special assessments. A public improvement however is not defined in the Charter or in
City Code.
This chapter of the Charter articulates the manner in which an improvement utilizing special
assessments is initiated either through a resident petition or through independent action of the City
Council. The Charter indicates that a project proposed by residents must also be approved by the
City Council, which would mean that absent such Council support, the resident petition could not
move forward. The Charter is silent on petitions for improvements that do NOT include special
assessments.
When a supported project utilizes special assessments, the Council orders the preparation of a
feasibility report to ensure the project is necessary, cost effective and feasible. Upon receipt of such
a report that confirms the project is needed, cost effective and feasible, the City Council schedules a
public hearing by resolution. After the public improvement hearing is held, sixty days is allotted
during which time no further work on the project proceeds, to provide opportunity for petitions
against the project to circulate and be filed. If no petitions are filed against the project within the 60
days, the project may move forward.
After two successive street projects failed due to the petition process, the City established a
Taskforce to respond to the issues addressed by petoners. The Taskforce focused their efforts on
two specific areas --street design and financing. The Taskforce met in 2007 and after many well -
attended meetings, a standard street design plan was adopted and a financing plan was approved
which eliminated the 25% special assessment and replaced it with tax increment finance (TIF)
dollars. Other funding sources were identified, including a ten-year across-the-board tax levy to
support the Street and utility Improvement Program instead of a series of project specific street
improvement bonds. After the work of the Taskforce was concluded, the City Council established a
Streets Committee to help guide the development of the projects, to consider non-standard design
issues, to hold neighborhood meetings and to address and respond to resident questions and
concerns prior to City Council actions.
Page 1
It has been suggested that the City dropped the special assessments from the street projects to avoid
and prevent any subsequent petitions. This is not true. While my role with the streets Taskforce
was peripheral at best, I do know that the special assessments component of the financing plan was
dropped after it became clear that the City could alternatively utilize the pooled, unobligated TIF
reserves. While there may have been residents who did not favor paying an annual street levy
because of the availability of other funds, I am not aware of anyone objecting to the elimination of
special assessments.
It would seem likely that the framers of the Charter provided residents with the right to petition
against projects that included special assessments due to the direct financial impact to the resident.
In Subdivision 2 of Section 8.04, the Charter further provides that when benefiting residents play
less than 100% of the cost of a local improvement, the whole community can petition against the
project, the assumption being that the balance of the cost would be passed on to the rest of the
taxpayers as would typically be the case. Thus, even if the directly benefitting residents support the
improvement, the rest of the community may object to paying their share. Such a petition, however,
would need to include nearly 3,000 signatures. If the improvement is not funded with any special
assessments, it is not subject to petition.
It may be the case that the Charter Commission feels that since assessments were dropped from the
streets financing plan, Chapter 8 should be amended to "return the power of petition" to the
residents. It has been suggested that perhaps the framers of the Charter never anticipated that a
street project would move forward without special assessments. While that may be true, I would
suspect that it would more likely be the case that the framers simply intended that the right to
petition against a project be restricted to those utilizing special assessments. Amending the Charter
to allow for petitions against projects NOT utilizing special assessments is a solution to a problem
which does not seem to exist.
That said, I am not suggesting that the provisions of Chapter 8 could not be improved upon. One of
the deficiencies of the present language, in my opinion, is that a petition against a Local
Improvement is an all or nothing proposition. Consider the following example. The City proposes
improvements to Silverview Pond to address localized seasonal flooding and to replace the
bituminous walkway. Fifty property owners would be assessed for the project. A petition against
the project is circulated because the residents would prefer an eight -foot wide trail rather than a ten -
foot wide trail. The petition is deemed sufficient thus preventing the project from moving forward
or being reconsidered by the Council for one year. Rather than stopping the project altogether,
could there be a mechanism that would allow for an amended project to move forward?
Even though residents are unable to formally petition against one of the street projects in the City's
ten-year street and utility improvement program, the City Council has gone to great lengths to
"hear" from residents who may be unsatisfied with one or more of the components of a project.
Whether it be street widths, mailbox groupings, locations of stormwater infiltration features, traffic
calming features, sidewalks, etc., every aspect of a project is discussed and considered, in contrast
perhaps with previously proposed projects. When sufficient residents object to a project
component, the plans are generally revised to satisfy the majority preferences of the residents.
Page 2
If it is the will of the Charter Commission to revise the Charter to allow petitions to be filed against
non -assessed improvements, there would be a number of issues that would need to be addressed,
such as:
® The ability to conduct emergency repairs (e.g., cannot petition against a project to
repair or replace failing infrastructure)
• The threshold of signatures needed (e.g., 25% of votes cast in last presidential
election
® The threshold of project cost (e.g., cannot petition something that will cost less than
$250,000)
® The ability to revise a project rather than kill it altogether
• Limit petitions only to general fund projects?
The Charter Commission has also been considering a change to the Charter which would provide
residents with the right to initiate projects absent special assessments. This is not a right presently
granted by the Charter. There are a number of concerns associated with this consideration that I will
attempt to address later in this memo, but first I want to review Section 8.04 which outlines the
process for assessed projects initiated by the residents. The Charter does not specify how much
time the Council has to react to a petition initiating a project, and there is no requirement that the
Council even support such a project. If the Council does support the initiated project, it shall seek
an estimate (feasibility report.) The Charter indicates that once the Council receives the estimate for
the improvement, it shall, by resolution, set a date for a public hearing on the proposed
improvement. The problem is, what if the estimate indicates the project is not feasible, necessary or
cost-effective? The Charter also requires that the resolution calling for the public hearing be
noticed in the Mounds View Matters, which could delay the hearing by as much as three months.
The Commission has prepared a draft flowchart (see attached) to graphically represent how Chapter
8 could function to allow for residents to petition for projects, with language similar to that of
Chapter 5 of the Charter. The "initiative" process in Chapter 5 however relates to code amendments,
such as, an ordinance amending how many dogs are permitted per household. Initiatives that
appropriate money, levy taxes ordeal with administrative issues are not allowed. Since most public
improvements with or without special assessments —involve the expenditure of public dollars, the
initiative process cannot be used for purposes of proposing public improvements. Thus, resident
petitions FOR improvements, with or without special assessments, should not be referred to as
Initiatives.
The concerns I have with a Charter amendment that would allow residents to petition for a public
improvements can be boiled down to three specific issues —timing, cost and feasibility. As to the
issue of timing, it would be difficult to explicitly assign a limit to the period of time necessary to
conduct a feasibility analysis, unless it were overly broad, such as, six to twelve months. (Refer to
Box 13 in the Commission's flowchart.) Assuming there was support for the project, the proposed
flowchart indicates the project must move forward within one year. (Refer to Box 15.) Within one
year of what? What if it takes many months to prepare the plans and specifications, order the
project, advertise for bids and award the contract --what if the contractor cannot perform the work in
what remains of the year deadline?
Page 3
Relating to cost, what if funds are not available to support the project? What if taxes need to be
raised to accommodate the work? The issue of cost should be of paramount concern. A large
improvement may require many months of financial analysis once it is determined what the cost of
actual improvements would be. Should the project be financed with general fund dollars?
Enterprise funds? Tax increment? Park dedication dollars? Should bonds be issued? While all
these same questions would need to be answered for any resident -initiated Local Improvement, at
least with petitions involving special assessments, the City Council can simply resolve that the
project is not feasible from the beginning, or if the project is desired, it would be not be hamstrung
by arbitrary deadlines and timeframes.
Another issue relating to cost is the feasibility report itself. There is a cost involved in determining
whether a proposed project is feasible, cost-effective and necessary. Naturally, the amount varies
based on the specific project, but a feasibility report for a large project could cost as much as
$50,000. Who pays for that? Generally speaking, an unplanned expenditure of that magnitude
would require a Council approved budget amendment and would necessitate that staff coordinate a
process that it might not have time to coordinate. The City goes through a fairly comprehensive and
detailed five-year financial plan every year, one of the components of which is the five-year capital
improvement plan. The identified projects are analyzed and ranked by need and estimated by cost
and determined how each would be paid. If residents feel a certain project or improvement is
needed, it would seem more appropriate to attend the annual five-year financial plan public hearing
or any City Council meeting, for that matter) and make the suggestion. To allow resident petitions
for improvements without special assessments regardless of the signature or cost thresholds —
would seem to undermine the extensive work put into the five-year financial plan.
The final concern involves residents petitioning for projects that are simply not viable. There are
seemingly countless examples of impractical, unfeasible improvements, and one would like to think
that most residents would not circulate or sign a petition for a project that makes no sense.
However, it would not be difficult to imagine someone circulating a petition for a well-intentioned
improvement that other residents might support, only to find that the project cannot be
accomplished due to financial constraints or factors completely outside the City's control or
authority. If the Charter is amended to allow for resident petitions for improvements without
special assessments, a clause should be included too permit the Council to resolve that the
petitioned project is either frivolous or not feasible as submitted, or not feasible after a feasibility
study has been conducted. As proposed in the draft flowchart (see Box 14), if the Council does not
support a petitioned project, it would be forced to add the project as a ballot measure —even if the
improvement is impractical, unneeded or fiscally imprudent.
In conclusion, there are many projects the City undertakes that are not specially -assessed to
benefitting property owners. With the exception of emergency repairs and minor maintenance, all
of these projects are identified in the City's five-year financial plan. Amending the Charter to
allow petitions against such non -assessed improvements and allow petitions for non -assessed
improvements would seem to be an unwarranted revision and an unnecessary constraint on the
ability of the City to function efficiently and effectively.
Page 4
Mounds View Charter Appendix F - Initiative Process Chapter 8 -Revision Date 2/9/2010
i Form Committee of 5 to 11C/signature
Within 160 days of filing H Is this the
members and file a copypetition, Deliver All first time petition of the petition with the P No
Clerk- Administrator prior Required Information to is being tested for
to circulation. Clerk -Administrator sufficiency?
Charter Sec 5.02, 5.06Sec 5.06 Sec 5.03 S
Have all
Yes requirements N
Within 21 calendar days the Sponsoring Committee must been met ?
submit corrected petition to Clerk -Administrator. Sec 5.04 Sec 5.03, 5.04
I Council ave a
Within 10 calendar days of receiving completed petition, No No requirements Yes
Clerk -Administrator notifies the City Council and determined petition been met ?
S onsorin Committee of deficiencies. Sec 5.04 was frivolous ?
p g Sec 5.02 Sec 5.03, 5.04
Declare petition frivolous & notify Yes Yes V
Sponsoring Committee no further action I t
Within 10 calendar Within 9 calendar
will be taken. Sec 5.06 1 3 t Z days of receiving days of receiving
1 City Council completed petition corrected petition
City Council Clerk -Administrator Clerk -Administrator
Project must move forward as r Yes ity Feasibility immediately reports to City reports to City
i� Accepts is proproj ect declares
city based project within 1 year as is Evaluation sufficiency by Council -Sec 5.03 Council -Sec 5.04
within X days,.. resolution
No'' File petition as insufficient
e uiremen j 1 Within X days and notify Sponsoring Committee
ity Coun ' I q provide sufficient within 10 calendar days that no further
offers an Yes Yes met for SC signatures for action will be taken. Sec 5.04
amendment? mendm sg
amended petition
No Yes
No
10 21 2� 2 �
Sponsoring Sponsoring ity Counci
No Committee disapproves Yes Is this the Yes Committee provides No Chooses to place Yes
he amendment within first f C consideration amendment within X Measure on a ballot
�aiPnna. �a`w f Council amen without
City Council No
Chooses to place
easure on-�
alto
Yes Hold First Reading, schedule
a public hearing pursuant to
MN Stat. 410,12 and any
additional requirements. Sec
5.06
%. t9 2.5 Ordinance takes effect
City Council No City Council Yes 30 calendar days after
Chooses to place pass Ordinance by publication unless a later
easure on ajority vote v date is specified in the
allo c 5. Ordinance Sec 5.016
Yes I 4place
City Council must pass a resolutio
measure on a ballot. Sec 5.05, 5.06.
Prepare for ballot within 120 days of City Council resolution
3 GI to place the measure on a ballot. Sec 5.05.
uitl a majority No
`� i of those voting on the
Ordinance vote in favor
Sec 5.06
Yes
Ordinance takes effect 30 calendar
days after election unless a later date
is specified in the Ordinance. Sec 5.06
Ordinance fails and .5 t'
process ends for this petition.
Sec 5.06
3�
Existing Petition Process for a Local Improvement Consistent with Chapter 8
Petition submitted Does NO
Council support Petition for an Initiated
containing signatures the Improve- Improvement fails
of at least 25% of ment9
affected properties
YES
Council adopts _._._..
resolution ordering
project estimate /' 1A1 r
1 a (tic
t,
1 I WI a \ 11
mjtide['3% } Resolution described in :!
h ;;r n cli _, /! •_..... ....� newsletter, published in
III wo IlolldIs f newspaper and notice
mailed to benefitting
— properly owners
Hold public
hearing,
wait 60 days
1
Was a
petition filed NO Vyear
ceed
against the
improvement?
SYES ionmores? NO
Date created: March 15, 2010 Chapter 8 Flowchart Him's).doc