HomeMy WebLinkAboutCharter Commission Meeting - Oct 10 12 2012Barb Benesch
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_9-1 2-1 2.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 5. 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" qualifier? Or we can use the Streets Program as an
example. Clearly it's a public improvement, but I don't think we can say it's of a local character. I
would assert that any city-wide improvement or program on its face is NOT of a local character. In
my line of thinking, it seems that the "local character" qualifier was there specifically to tie back to
special assessments. If we're no longer talking about special assessments strictly, then I don't think it
makes sense to retain the limiting "local character" qualifier.
Continuing on in Section 8.01, in lines 9 & 10, if the Commission eliminates the connection to special
assessments, the following sentence would no longer seem to apply:
"No collection of dedicated revenue shall exceed the benefits to the property." This clause relates to
special assessments. With the expansion of dedicated revenue to include OTHER sources of
revenue (tax levies, fees, funds) the ability to show "benefit" becomes a challenge. When
assessments are NOT part of a project's funding, requiring that the City show a direct benefit to the
individual property owner would be impractical --if not impossible --to do, and could add significant cost
to the project attempting conduct such analyses.
As a result of all the proposed changes, the next line in Section 8.01 (Lines 10/11) contradicts the
process and procedures relating to public improvements paid for with dedicated revenues:
"This Chapter does not apply to public improvements funded only with general funds or bonding."
If the public improvement is not paid for in part or whole using special assessments, then it is paid for
using tax dollars, in which case this chapter does not apply. This clause again is based on the notion
of assessment or no assessments. Leaving this line in the Charter will negate almost all of the
additional limitations being proposed by the Commission.
An exception to the above would include the water tower reconditioning project --a project funded
wholly through enterprise funds. Another exception would be the new park buildings at Random Park
(and Hillview and Groveland Parks before it) which were paid using Park Dedication Fund dollars.
These two projects then WOULD be covered under the Chapter, thus we'd have to show a benefit to
property owners. How?
Finally (regarding Section 8.01, anyway) the new sentence starting on Line 11 could be worded
differently:
The sentence begins, "All public improvements which may levy and collect Dedicated Revenue...."
An "improvement" cannot levy or collect revenue. Perhaps it should read, " All public improvements
FUNDED WITH ANY LEVEL OF Dedicated Revenue shall be exclusively controlled by this
Chapter...." Or something similar.
The sentence goes on to say that such projects "shall exclusively be controlled by this Chapter and
the Charter, as a whole..."
Since in reality every "public improvement" is funded and implemented using dedicated revenues, this
sentence seems to contradict the preceding sentence, which excludes improvements paid for using
general funds. Unless the Commission intends to clarify the definition of dedicated revenues to
2
exclude general funds or bonds, it would seem that one of these two clauses at the end of 8.01 would
need to change.
OK, moving on to the definitions...
Assessment District: This definition is confusing. Did it come from statutes? What is a Local
Improvement Plan? It's "capped" so is there a corresponding definition? The following phrase seems
particularly difficult to translate: "Upon Council approval of the Local Improvement Resolution, the
collection of all benefitted properties specifically identified by County Property Record number in the
resolution and notice sent to the property owner of record prior to the Council action to approve the
resolution." After reading that three times, I'm fairly certain something is missing because as it reads,
it's not even a complete sentence.
Benefitted Property: This definition needs to be tweaked as well. It says, "The property or properties
which will be improved or maintained as a result of the improvement being completed." With very
limited exception, the city will not undertake any improvement upon private property, which this
definition seems to suggest. I also have questions about the "procedural" language that follows but
will refrain from commenting until such a procedural section has been prepared.
City Services. The word "sited" in the first sentence should be "cited".
Dedicated Revenue. I think the definition is too broad. Does this include special assessment dollars?
See comments above.
Local Improvement. The change proposed by adding the words "or by other dedicated revenue"
negates the need to have a separate definition. The Charter presently defines a local improvement
as "a public improvement financed partly or wholly from special Assessments." The proposed
change makes "Public Improvement" and "Local Improvement" the very same thing, in essence.
Local Character. I disagree with the definition as proposed. Local character simply means that the
improvement is one in which the benefits are limited to a smaller area of the City and thus warranting
or justifying the use of a special assessment against the benefitting properties. The City determines
the benefitting properties and the resident has the right to appeal any such inclusion or assessment,
per statute, 429.081. It is NOT in the City's best interest to broadly interpret a benefitting area as
appeals cost the City money and will often delay the implementation of a project.
Public Improvement. As I've stated previously, I think the definition is overly broad. Work done to
increase value or bring about a more desirable condition? Cutting the grass in the right of way,
plowing the streets, replacing a sidewalk panel, fixing a pothole would all be considered public
improvements according to the definition. Granted, the statutory definition of Improvement in statutes
(429.081) is quite extensive in and of itself, so not sure what to suggest.
Public Improvement Project. This definition builds on an overly broad definition of Public
Improvement and City Services, and includes procedural steps, which I'll refrain from commenting
upon until that section is prepared and considered. That said, a Public Improvement Project is
specifically defined as multi -year project completed in segments or steps. That being the case, in
reality, almost all projects undertaken by the City would NOT be a Public Improvement Project, since
most projects are completed in one year or less. One could argue ONLY the Street and Utility
Improvement Program would be considered a Public Improvement Project. Was it the Commission's
intent to create such a limiting definition? I fear however that the narrow definition could be construed
to include normal maintenance operations (city services) which may be segmented over many years,
3
such as testing 20% of stormwater ponds on an annual basis, or inspecting 25% of the rental units on
an annual basis, or striping 30% of the roads on an annual basis, or seal -coating roads every five
years, etc.
While I did not want to address procedural issues, I'll make just one statement (assuming anyone is
still reading at this point): As was stated at a recent Charter Commission meeting and as proposed in
the draft provisions to Chapter 8, one intent of the Commission in revising this Chapter is to empower
residents with the ability to petition against a street project despite there being no special
assessments. Has the Commission discussed the rationale behind why an expansion of the right to
petition is warranted?
In conclusion (I know, FINALLY, you think!) I look at Chapter 8 as a complex series of interwoven
controls relating to public improvements delicately balanced upon the premise of special
assessments. If you remove the special assessment linchpin, and in its place insert something
different, the entire chapter begins to wobble under the weight of unintended consequences. It would
almost make more sense to leave the chapter as it is, and simply create a NEW section to address
the process/procedure for projects that do NOT incorporate assessments (in part or whole) as a
funding source. That way, the integrity of the chapter relating to special assessments is preserved
while at the same time resolving the perceived need to address projects NOT funded through special
assessments. I know the Commission has already invested significant time into the proposed
revisions and I do not mean to minimize or dismiss any efforts up to this point, I simply offer the
suggestion as an alternative for your collective consideration moving forward, with all due respect.
If anyone has questions, feel free to call or write. I'll plan on attending the next meeting if anyone
feels that would be helpful.
Again, sorry for the prolific message.
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)
BCC: City Council
4